1

BOARD OF THE FACULTY OF CLASSICS

REPORT OF THE

EXAMINERS

FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS IN

CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Trinity Term 2013

UNRESERVED VERSION

2

A: STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Numbers of candidates in each class, 2013

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 4 11 0 0 15 % 27% 73%

2. CAAH Moderations Results: 2002-2012

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2002 1 13 14 7% 93% 2003 4 17 21 19% 81% 2004 1 13 1 15 7% 87% 7% 2005 4 15 3 22 18% 68% 14% 2006 3 14 2 19 16% 74% 11% 2007 2 12 4 18 11% 67% 22% 2008 1 17 4 22 5% 77% 18 2009 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2010 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2011 3 18 2 23 13% 78% 9% 2012 4 16 20 20% 80%

3

3. Classes by gender

Female I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2 4 6 % 33% 67% Variance from overall +6% -6% percentage

Male I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2 7 9 % 22% 78% Variance from overall -5% +5% percentage

4. Examiners and Assessors

The Examiners were:

Dr PCN Stewart (Chair) Dr R Thomas Dr N Momigliano (External)

5. Overall level of performance

The overall level of performance was somewhat better than in 2012, with the same number of 1sts from a smaller cohort, but given the small size of the programme the proportions are in line with past performance across the years. It was notable that there were no 2.2 results or lower. All of the examiners were aware of the risk of results bunching in the 2.1/low 1st range, but considered the marks genuinely to reflect consistently sound performance rather than caution on the part of the markers. There were instances of exceptionall high marks on individual papers and questions, although the examination process in its entirety has had a homogenizing effect.

For more detailed discussion please see individual reports under Examiners’ Reports.

6. Administration It should be noted that in accordance with the change from Moderations to Prelims in 2013, the results should not have been classified as above, but rather as Pass/Fail results, with or without a 'Distinction' category. Although the issue was raised by one assessor during the process, no one involved in the administration of the process was aware that the change in classification scheme was required. This error had no practical consequences for marking, as the marking conventions under both systems 4 are consistent. Consequently the Junior Proctors agreed to allow the classified marks to stand for the 2013 examinations.

Two others problems arose on the Roman Architecture paper, where an error had crept into one questions at an early stage of editing and was not spotted by the examiners (it had the effect of making the question impossibly restrictive), and similarly with meaningful formatting on the Cicero paper (see below). This raised the question of whether paper-setters should routinely be asked to check the final papers. Several of the other assessors queried the practice of examiners carrying out final edits of papers without necessarily consulting the setters, and this could be reviewed for next year. Otherwise no problems occurred with the papers.

The Examiners are most grateful to Brooke Martin-Garbutt for help in preparing the papers and to Andrew Dixon for compiling the marks and for all his help during and after the examination.

B. EXAMINERS’ REPORTS

Reports on papers with fewer than five candidates have been removed for reasons of data protection.

CORE PAPERS

Aristocracy and democracy in the Greek World, 550-450 BC

Overview: 15 candidates, 3 firsts (20%), no lower seconds or thirds. The cohort performed well overall: even relatively less good work was mostly sound and no one scored less overall than 65. A particular strength was that candidates frequently integrated archaeological and textual evidence in a sophisticated way, thereby demonstrating that the main objective of the integrated "core" class had been achieved. The spelling of foreign words or names was good this year (esp. e.g. no one mutilated kouroi or korai), with most minor mistakes probably due to nerves. Attention to spelling in the classes and in the non-assessed course on "Introduction to Greek" seems to be paying dividends.

Qu.1: Picture / gobbet question. This was the first year in which the paper included a compulsory picture / gobbet question. All but two candidates chose to answer on two images and one text. The most popular images were i. (tyrannicides: twelve takers), and iii. (Serpent Column: twelve takers), while iv. ('Ionian' delegation from Persepolis) had only four takers, and no one was tempted by ii. (Connolly's reconstruction of Athens ca. 500 B.C.). Answers were mostly good, with the best making detailed observations and drawing points of wider significance from these as well as showing awareness of the wider context. All gobbets were attempted, but most opted for vi. (Hdt on Peisistratos' second tyranny: ten takers), or viii. (A.P. on ostracism), while only one candidate attempted v. (Xenophanes on the value of athletic winners), or vii. (Hdt on Datis at Delos). The reduced popularity of the texts, and the fact that gobbet technique was generally unrefined, indicate that candidates need much more instruction and practice in answering this question, even though the Course Handbook includes very clear guidelines. 5

Essay questions. Of the essay questions the most popular were 2. (tyrants: ten takers), 3. (symposion: ten takers), 6. (Sparta: seven takers), and 8 (coinage: nine takers). No other question attracted more than four answers, and no one answered on 7 (Spartan basileis), 10 (epigraphy), 12 (Magna Graecia), 13 (ordinary men / women) or 14 (writing history from an archaeological rather than textual viewpoint). We report on the four most popular questions as follows: In Qu 2 the better answers brought in a wide range of tyrants from across the Greek world (including several who had not been discussed in the classes and had therefore been researched through reading around the paper) and included relevant detail (e.g. dates). They also examined the question from both sides (tyrants making their communities / being made by them) and brought out difficulties of interpretation (esp. e.g. the extent to which particular monumental buildings may be associated with particular tyrants) before reaching a nuanced conclusion. In Qu 3 better answers examined all three elements of the question (textual, iconographical, and archaeological evidence for the symposion) using a thematic structure before attempting a synthesis, or concluding that the impressions offered by each strand were different. When handling the evidence they also showed detailed knowledge (e.g. citing images from specific pots) and critical awareness of the different geographical and chronological contexts of the texts, pots, or putative andrones referred to. All candidates needed to do more to bring out this aspect, especially with regard to the iconographic evidence and its Athenocentric nature, or the fact that large numbers of intact sympotic pots were recovered from contexts in Etruria (and the implications which could follow from this), or with regard to absences of evidence. In Qu 6 assessors liked answers that brought a wide range of evidence to bear, used this critically, and avoided basic mistakes (e.g. some candidates thought that the ancient tradition about Spartan money was that it was made of lead rather than iron, or that Sparta had been walled in the fourth century B.C.). Candidates were less good at thinking through the complexities of "Sparta", esp. e.g. who it was in Sparta who made the material evidence, and for what / whom. In Qu 8 candidates needed to read the question carefully and note that it was not about the origins or early history of Greek coinage, but directed at the developmental processes that its emergence illustrates. Better answers showed how coinage reflected a number of interesting developmental changes, and used an impressive array of evidence to support their answers.

Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50

There were 15 candidates. The agreed marks resulted in: two firsts (in the lower 70s), twelve 2.1s (across the range of the 60s), and one 2.2. There was a little clustering of (three) candidates at the very top of the 2.1 band, which acurately reflects the level of performance of the candidates.

The overall mark profile reflects the fact that candidates were consistently highly competent and well prepared, if not generally very adventurous in the development of ideas and and arguments. Nevertheless, performance across the paper was very satisfactory. As with the Greek Core Course (Aristocracy and Democracy, above), this was the first year of the compulsory picture/gobbet question. The candidates 6 seemed well prepared and there were no indications of the exercise causing significant problems. The treatment of the texts, however, did suggest a lack of awareness of the context (i.e. the kind of text in question), which let down some of the answers to 1. vi (Piso SC), vii (Tacitus), and viii (Petronius). By far the most popular pictures/gobbets chosen were 1.iii (cuirass of Prima Porta statue) and v. (Cicero), with 13 and 11 takers respectively. Attention was more or less evenly given to most of the the others, although 1.ii (Farnesina) was unpopular and no one answered on 1.i (relief of the Gessii).

The most popular essay questions were 4. (How strategic was Roman expansion... 10 takers) and 10. (on defining villas; 9 takers), while 5. (religion and the emperor's political position) was also liked. No one answered on 6 (gardens), 11 (freedmen - perhaps surprisingly), or 14 (Tiberius, Rome and the Senate), while 2 (Caesar as model) and 7 (dynastic portraiture) only had one taker.

Answers were in general highly competent, if not always sufficiently critical or probing. The assessors noted, for example, that answers to 9. (How appropriate is the term 'propaganda' for explaining Augustan art?) tended not to engage critically with the term itself (despite the guidance of the inverted commas).

ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

Homeric archaeology and early Greece, 1550-700 BC

7 Candidates sat the exam. One candidate gained a 1st, four achieved 2.1, and two gained 2.2. A range of essay questions was attempted, the most popular being 3 (representational art) and 4 (textual and archaeological evidence for religion or society). Also addressed were 8 (collapse), 5 (the Mycenaean economy), 11 (hero cult) and 2 (Minoan influence on mainland state formation). Some questions were well answered, especially those on Mycenaean religion where most candidates showed detailed knowledge based on sound reading. There were good answers also to other questions although those on the economy lacked sufficient detail. The most popular question this year (art) was unfortunately also the most patchily done. While there were a few sound answers, too many relied merely on lecture notes and did not engage with major debates in the field. Answers to the compulsory picture question were also variable. All the images attracted takers, with the most popular being C (a chariot krater) and D (a Linear B tablet). Again there were some excellent responses, but too many weak ones. Some candidates could not even identify the vessel as a krater (or did not seem to know what this was), a shape one should think they would know also from their studies of later periods. On the Linear B tablet some were uncertain which of the signs might be numbers, showing lack of even the most cursory reading on the subject (an introductory account of even a few pages should get one that far). Also, few candidates were able to identify the bull’s heads as rhyta rather than livestock. This would be understandable if one had never seen this tablet, but it is on display in the Ashmolean and anyone who had looked at the display case should have picked this up.

7

Roman architecture

This paper was taken by 5 students, all 2:1s. Given the small numbers, a good spread of questions was attempted. Very few of the images in the picture question were recognized, despite all being in the lecture PowerPoints, which suggests that this resource is underutilized. Despite this, there was evidence in many answers of excellent observational skills and some sensible deductions about the images. Essays were on the whole better done and most answers showed a good range of knowledge and understanding of issues, but inaccuracies marred even the best (a major contributor to the lack of 1sts), and areas of confusion the weaker ones. In a very few cases the answer did not really address the question.

HISTORY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

Cicero and Catiline

There were six scripts in total; five were marked in the 60s and there was one genuinely exceptional first-class paper. Every one of the scripts showed method, critical thinking, and the ability to write analytically. It was overall a very encouraging performance with evidence from every candidate of the development of all the skills needed to succeed in the course.

Gobbets: All except gobbet (g) were attempted, and each by at least two candidates. The passages should have followed the typographical conventions of the translation specified in the CAAH handbook, which prints the Ciceronian lemmata in italics and Asconius’ comments in standard type. The paper was submitted in this style, but the italics were removed. This resulted in a potentially confusing appearance to the text, where Cicero’s words and Asconius’ words were run together with no typographical indication that two voices has been included in the excerpted passage. This may or may not have had anything to do with putting candidates off gobbet (g). The gobbets were handled confidently and well. Candidates had, in general, a good standard of historical knowledge as well as knowledge of the texts, and wrote sensitively about the literary or rhetorical purposes of passages (both here and in the essays).

Essays: questions 2 (four takers), 3 (five takers), and 5 (four takers) were most popular, and only questions 4 and 7 were not attempted.

Q2: Most candidates thought that Cicero had not suffered very much from prejudice against him as a new man. Students should perhaps remember that success does not in itself prove that the obstacles to be overcome were not serious. In general, also, candidates could have considered more fully the trouble that Cicero had in persuading the senate to follow his lead, especially concerning violence at the elections in 63. However, some good points were made about the ineffectiveness of the slurs cast on Cicero by Antonius and Catiline in 64 and Torquatus in 62. Candidates were certainly not penalised for having a lower estimation of the difficulties Cicero faced on account of his background than the estimation of the marker, provided that they argued well. Q3: Most candidates had clearly thought through in advance the question of what Catiline was actually up to in 63 and all candidates showed a sceptical, critical 8 approach to the allegations. There was sensible scepticism about Sallust’s connection with Manlius’ revolt in Etruria. The desire to divorce Catiline entirely from “the other conspirators” (Lentulus et al) was not as fully thought through, and the logic of some essays began to fall apart here. Very pleasingly, one candidate knew that Catiline had been indicted for vis in 63.

Q5: Most candidates thought that Sallust’s portrait was interesting because it was a mix of positive and negative qualities, and most answers were thoughtful about connecting this to Sallust’s historiographical purposes, moral ideas, and so on. The range of quality here mostly reflected different levels of sophistication and originality.

It was extremely pleasing to see extensive use of the too-often overlooked Asconius.

(Chair of Examiners, CAAH Prelims, 2013) 28 October, 2013

1

BOARD OF THE FACULTY OF CLASSICS

REPORT OF THE

EXAMINERS

FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS IN

CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Trinity Term 2014

2

A: STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Numbers of candidates in each class, 2014

Distinction Pass Fail Total 6 17 0 23 % 26% 74%

2. CAAH Moderations Results: 2002-2013

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2002 1 13 0 14 7% 93% 2003 4 17 0 21 19% 81% 2004 1 13 1 15 7% 87% 7% 2005 4 15 3 22 18% 68% 14% 2006 3 14 2 19 16% 74% 11% 2007 2 12 4 18 11% 67% 22% 2008 1 17 4 22 5% 77% 18 2009 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2010 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2011 3 18 2 23 13% 78% 9% 2012 4 16 0 20 20% 80% 2013 4 11 0 15 27% 73%

3. Classes by gender

Female Distinction Pass FailTotal 3 14 0 17 % 18% 82% Variance from overall percentage +8% -8%

3

Male Distinction Pass FailTotal 3 3 0 6 % 50% 50% Variance from overall percentage +24% -24%

4. Examiners and Assessors

The Examiners were:

Dr Lisa M Bendall (Chair) Dr Neil McLynn (External)

5. Overall level of performance

The overall level of performance was almost identical to that in 2013, with the same percentage of 1sts from a larger cohort. Given the small size of the programme, the proportions are in line with past performance across the years. Also, although classes are no longer awarded, it was pleasing that only one result was lower than what would have been awarded 2.1 in the past. All of the examiners were aware of the risk of results bunching in the 2.1/low 1st range, but considered the marks genuinely to reflect consistently sound performance rather than caution on the part of the markers. There were instances of exceptionally high marks on individual papers and questions, and although the examination process in its entirety has had a homogenizing effect there was a pleasing number of well-deserved distinctions. For more detailed discussion please see individual reports under (B) Examiners’ Reports.

Gender: It is striking that 50% of men and only 18% of women achieved distinctions, but the figures come into focus when the small numbers of the cohort are observed. In 2014, only 6 men took the exam, and 17 women; in such small cohorts, even a single figure will have a marked effect. In 2013, 33% of women gained a first, and 22% of men. Only 6 women sat the exam that year, two gaining a first – if one more candidate had gained a first, the figures would exactly mirror the percentage in 2014 for men. While the situation should continue to be monitored, there seems no general reason for concern with the present outcome.

6. Administration

In accordance with the change from Moderations to Prelims in 2013, results are now classified as Pass/Fail results, with discretion to recognise a ‘Distinction’ in cases where candidates have performed exceptionally well.

Paper-setters were asked this year to check the final papers, to avoid repeat of a problem that arose in 2013 where an error crept into one question at an early stage of editing and was not spotted by the examiners. This worked well and should be continued as standard practice henceforth.

4

The Examiners are most grateful to Erica Clarke and Andrew Dixon for help in preparing the papers and compiling the marks and for all their help during and after the examination.

B. EXAMINERS’ REPORTS

Reports on papers with fewer than five candidates have been removed for reasons of data protection.

CORE PAPERS

Aristocracy and democracy in the Greek World, 550-450 BC

General: 23 candidates sat this paper. This was a good run of scripts in which candidates had prepared well and rose to the challenge of integrating textual and archaeological evidence. Four marks of 70 or more were awarded, and only one below 60. This year’s markers were tolerant of candidates who made errors of presentation, such as failing to indicate the start of a new question by writing the number in the margin, failing to follow the instruction to cross through rough working, writing in the box on the front of booklets that is reserved for examiners, or including inappropriate messages for the markers. The current cohort should understand clearly that such misdemeanours will have serious consequences if repeated in Finals; future candidates should note that other markers may be much less forgiving.

As in previous years, too few candidates showed accurate knowledge of dates or an awareness that the chronological framework matters and can be useful. In some cases basic factual errors could have been avoided through the application of common sense: if the paper ends in ca. 450 B.C. then Peisistratos’ third tyranny cannot have taken root in 446 B.C.; if the author of AP wrote about fourth-century matters then he cannot have composed the work in ca. 430 B.C.; the skull alone of a crocodile found at the Samian Heraion cannot have measured 5m in length. Spelling was generally sound, but ‘Peloponnese’ caused problems, as did the sg./pl. of ‘kline/ klinai’, and of ‘eromenos/ eromenoi’.

Picture / Gobbet Question This year all pictures and gobbets were attempted by at least one candidate, and there was a better balance than last year between candidates who preferred to write on two pictures (13/23) and those who preferred to do two gobbets (10/23). The most popular picture was i, and the most popular gobbet viii (further details as below). The overall quality of answers was much higher than that of last year indicating that candidates were much better prepared for this question. Stronger answers commented on date, shape or context, described or picked out specific details or words, and worked from observations towards points of wider significance, occasionally drawing all the strands together in a concluding paragraph (though this is not essential). Weaker answers made vague statements about the image or text, or repeated background knowledge without tying this obviously to the specific piece or passage, or made mistakes in identification or interpretation, or followed implausible arguments. When dealing with images some candidates commented on artistic matters at the expense of the historical and archaeological matters required by the question; when dealing with texts candidates often 5 showed pleasing knowledge about authors, works, and genres but these are not required unless they elucidate the gobbet (see e.g. the end of vii. where Hdt refers to his own day). As this question is still relatively new to CAAH Prelims, we offer extended comments on specific questions:

1.i. (ARF kylix by Douris with sympotic scene, ca. 500-450 B.C., from Chiusi, now in the Archaeological Museum, Florence): 21 answers. Good answers linked the two images and thought about the ‘virtual andron’ created by the decorative scheme. They also commented on the rich detail included in the painted scenes (down to Phrygian cap, lamp, and strigil), as well as the role of music (indicated by the auletes), alluded to the role of sympotic poetry (e.g. Theognis), and fitted the piece into the context of symposiastic practices.

1.ii. (The "Croesus Amphora", by Myson, ARF, ca. 500-480 B.C., from Vulci, Italy, now in the Louvre): 6 answers. Of those candidates who chose to answer on this well-known piece surprisingly few identified it correctly, and some did not register that the two images represent two sides of the same pot. Many of the possibilities for comment offered by the depictions of a non-Greek ruler and of a woman in barbarian clothing were not exploited.

1.iii. (Lakonian (?) bronze figurine of a running girl, ca. 520-500, said to be from Prizren, Kosovo, now in the BM): 4 answers. This more difficult and unusual piece elicited good responses that made the most of the detail on offer (gender, activity, clothing, hair), and discussed its significance, though no one suggested that the figurine had probably once been attached to a larger bronze object.

1.iv. (Plan of Delphi ca. 480 B.C., by Bergquist): 5 answers. There were several good answers that argued cogently about the date, identified the various structures visible, commented on their function, and talked about matters such as the placement of the treasuries, the use of the landscape at Delphi, etc.

1.v. ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 15.1-3: Peis. withdraws and plots his return to Athens): 12 answers. Most candidates who tackled this gobbet wrote good responses in which they showed sound knowledge of the background to Peisistratos’ third coup. Better attempts mentioned chronological issues, the metal ores of Mt. Pangaion, and the importance to aspiring tyrants of mercenaries plus networks of leading aristocrats from other communities.

1.vi. (Athenaios Deip. 12.57d-f: Polykrates adorns Samos): 5 answers. Candidates missed opportunities to discuss the exotic fauna as evidence for a putative paradeisos at Samos, and the significance of this in terms of possible cultural links between Samos and Sardis. However, they did comment on other relevant features, such as the positive light in which Polykrates is cast.

1.vii. (Hdt 6.42: Settlement of Ionia after the revolt; Hdt context) 1 answer. It was surprising that more candidates did not choose this straight-forward passage.

1.viii. (Thuc. 1.10: Sparta's unimpressive physical footprint v. its politico-milit. power): 16 answers. Good answers to this gobbet considered the degree of exaggeration in Thuc. and mentioned evidence for the existence of monumental structures at Sparta. More could have been made of the vastness of the area of the Peloponnese controlled by Sparta, the nature of Sparta’s leading role, and Sparta’s external allies.

6

Essays This year’s candidates attempted a wide range of questions from across the paper, including some of those that were harder. The most popular were Qu. 2 and 4 (question/statistics as below); the least attractive were qu. 7 and 10, both of which required candidates to show knowledge of places and communities beyond those covered in the classes (Athens, Sparta, Samos). The best candidates brought a variety of evidence to bear but a few strayed too far or dallied too long on material outside the chronological range of the paper. Many candidates included sketches and these were rewarded when relevant.

Qu. 2. (Thuc.’s assessment of tyrants): 17 answers. This was the most popular question. Better answers brought in a range of tyrants from different times, places, and circumstances, and commented briefly on the problematic nature of the evidence (e.g. historiographical matters pertaining to the long quotation from Thuc.; uncertainties about who paid for the construction of monumental buildings).

Qu. 3. (In what ways did aristocratic life change in Athens ca. 550-450 B.C.?): 8 answers. No one mentioned continuities as a way of setting their answer in relief, or mentioned liturgies. Better answers included a range of evidence, and broke the period down into smaller phases to highlight change.

Qu. 4. (To what extent is Athenian democratic ideology reflected in material culture from the late sixth and early fifth centuries B.C.?): 13 answers. This question was answered well by most candidates who included the sorts of evidence that would be expected (images on pottery, buildings, ostraca, etc.).

Qu. 5. (Other than through the symposium, how did aristocrats maintain their elite status?): 7 answers. Those who avoided Athenocentric tendencies answered this question well, and brought in politics, religion, games, marriage-ties, xenia, etc.

Qu. 14 (What are the main issues involved in attempting to bring together archaeological and textual evidence to write a coherent history of the Greek world in this period?) 7 answers. This was a harder question and it was good to see that it proved moderately popular. Most candidates who attempted this wrote interesting essays that demonstrated that they had got to grips with some of the major methodological issues of the paper.

The following questions attracted five answers or fewer: Qu. 6. (How useful is Herodotus for the study of Sparta?): 5 answers. Qu. 7. (Compare and contrast the development of Aigina and Samos): 0 answers. Qu. 8. (How uniform and inevitable was the eventual predominance of silver coinage issued to the Attic-Euboic or Aiginetan weight standards up to ca. 450 B.C.?): 2 answers. Qu. 9. (Persian ambitions and policy towards the Greeks west of Ionia): 3 answers. Qu. 10. (developments in the Aegean and in Magna Graecia): 0 answers. Qu. 11. (changes in dedicatory practices at Gk sanctuaries): 1 answer. Qu. 12. (What would a history of the non-elite look like for this period?): 4 answers. Qu. 13. (To what degree was the success of Greek states ca. 550-450 B.C. geographically and environmentally determined?...): 2 answers.

7

Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50

There were 23 candidates this year, and some pleasing work on show: four gained distinctions, and there was much consistently high upper second-level work, with only two overall marks below 60. In general a good amount of evidence of learning and thinking was displayed, although errors in using Latin seemed slightly more prevalent this year than in the last year or two.

All gobbets were attempted by at least one candidate (though only one in the case of I.i). The three candidates who recognised and chose to attempt the picture gobbet on the plan of Waldgirmes generally did well, as did most of the handful who attempted I.iii (plan of San Rocco villa)—not all correctly identified the villa, but the right kind of approach to the plan was evident. The most popular picture was I.iv (aureus of 28 BC), which produced mixed performances. Few seemed to know the coin, and analysis with varying degrees of success was therefore applied in working out the relevance of ‘cos VI’, without which the full significance of the coin could not be brought out. The best candidates provided a clear and concise description, explained various elements of coin legend and iconography and explained the relevance of issuing such a coin in 28 BC. Of the text gobbets, most popular was I.v (from Res Gestae, about Gaius and Lucius Caesar), tackled by nineteen candidates, and generally well handled, although more than one candidate thought Livia was Gaius and Lucius’ mother, and surprisingly few considered why Augustus might have chosen to include this subject in the inscription. I.vi (from the Moretum) produced some pleasing answers from the four candidates who attempted it, with pleasing discussions of the macellum and nundinae, although not all answers were fully attuned to the moralising nature of the poem. I.vii (Suetonius on Claudius’ expedition to Britain) was also popular, with fourteen takers, and pleasingly if patchily handled: among them candidates provided good comments on Claudius’ need for military glory, on Suetonius’ take on the expedition, on the importance of Divus Julius being cited as precedent, and on the state of Britain at the time, though time constraints prevented most individuals from tackling all of these and there were also some misreadings of the text. I.viii (edict of Claudius on the Anauni, Tulliassi and Sinduni) was less popular (four takers), but produced some pleasing discussions, not all of which were sufficiently connected to Claudius. The weakest gobbet answers overall provided only very basic description or tended to paraphrase.

Only two essay questions (q. 9 on landscape archaeology and q. 14 on centuriation) attracted no takers. Some strong performances were on show on individual essays, including those on ‘Romanization’ (q.13) and shipwrecks (q.12). By far the most popular questions were, q. 2 (‘Was Julius Caesar simply a model of how not to rule between 44 BC and AD 50?’) with twelve answers, q.10 (‘How easily can we relate the archaeological and literary evidence for villas in this period?’) and q. 6 (‘What kind of evidence is most useful for understanding imperial succession in this period?’), each with nine takers, and q. 4 (‘How did provincials respond to the idea of a Rome ruled by one man?’), q. 11 (‘To what extent is the reality of the expansion of the empire encapsulated in Vergil’s phrase ‘empire without end’ (Aeneid 1.279)?’ and q.13 (‘How problematic is “Romanization” as a term for describing cultural change in this period?’), each with seven answers. The strongest answers to essay questions were thoughtful, answered the question with proper attention to all its constituent elements (e.g. ‘between 44 BC and AD 50’ (q.2), ‘urban trade’ (q.7), ‘successors’ (plural) in q.8, ‘How easily’ (q.10)), and deployed pleasingly detailed knowledge of relevant evidence and how to think about it. It 8 was refreshing to read occasional, independent approaches in a year in which many answers used almost identical examples, and it was good to see a number of candidates using sketches and plans effectively to support their answers.

Errors in Latin, as noted above, were not prevalent but more evident than in recent years: macellae; res rusticum, divi Julius, divi Claudius, Brittania, Tabula Sirensis, and Divus Augusta were among those noted.

ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

Greek sculpture

There were 10 candidates for this paper, with two gaining a distinction. A good range of questions was attempted. In the picture question, all images attracted two or more takers with the most popular being B (funeral stele with sphinx) and C (Lapiths and centaur). All essay questions attracted takers except Q 3 (sculpture in archaic temples). The most popular were Qs 5 (classical gods), 6 (Delphi Charioteer), 8 (women), 9 (Mausoleum of Halikarnassos), 11 (Roman copies), 13 (importance of colour or bronze). The majority of essays were very competent, and there were many strong answers which fully addressed the questions and showed excellent knowledge and understanding.

LANGUAGES

11 candidates took the Beginning Latin option, 7 gaining distinctions. 4 candidates took Beginning Greek, all gaining a distinction. The performance was overall very good indeed – candidates had prepared the set materials well, had no trouble translating well, and managed the unseen text very well indeed. The grammar questions were occasionally less securely answered – which is not surprising after only one year of Latin or Greek; but future cohorts may want to practice this side of the exam more. It will be good to remember that a question asking for a commentary/explanation is always best answered by starting with parsing, and only after that should an attempt at commenting/explaining be made.

Chair of Examiners, CAAH Prelims 2014 31 October, 2014 EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORT FORM 2015

Title of Examination: Honour School of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History External Title: Dr. Examiner Name: Details Position: Senior lecturer Home Institution:

Please complete both Parts A and B.

Part A Please (✓) as applicable* Yes No N/A A1. Did you receive sufficient information and evidence in a timely √ manner to be able to carry out the role of External Examiner effectively? A2. Arre the academic standards and the achievements of students √ comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions of which you have experience? A3. Do the threshold standards for the programme appropriately reflect √ the frameworks for higher eduucation qualifications and any applicable subject benchmark statement? [Please refer to paragraph 3(c) of the Guidelines for External Examiner Reports]. A4. Does the assessment process measure student achievement √ rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the prrogramme(s)? A5. Is the assessment process conducted in line with the University's √ policies and regulations? A6. Have issues raised in your previous reports been responded to √ and/or addressed to your satisfaction?

* If you answer “No” to any question, pplease provide further comments in Part B. Further comments may also be given in Part B, if desired, if you answer “Yes” or ““NN/A”.

Part B

B1. Academic standards a. How do academic standards achieved by the students compare with those achieved by students at other higher education institutions of which you have experience

The standards achieved by the students are compatible with those in my own institution, UCL. The overall standard hardly ever fell below the II.1 range: a sign of good teaching. b. Please comment on student performance and achievement across the relevant programmes or parts of programmes (those examining in joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award).

The cohort examined was not very large: 14 students, six of whom gained a First class result. The piece of work in which the success oor failure of this joint programme are particularly visible is the Museum or Site Report. I read/sampled most of these, and aam satisfied that the programme’s aims, to write history byy means of rigorous archaeological investigation and documentation, are achieved in the majority of the report. The best students did very good, rigorous and original work, and clearly understood what was demanded off them. It seems to me extremely important that this element in the degree programme continues to be supervised adequately and pro-actively and that care is taken to match student with supervisor (in one or two case, both of a very high level, a suupervisor’s—obviously—more upp-to-date knowledge of recent, relevant, bibliography, could have given the students an extra oppportunity to take into account new developments).

B2. Rigour and conduct of the assessment process

Please comment on the rigour and conduct of the assessment process, including whether it ensures equity of treatment for students, and whether iit has been conducted fairly and within the University’s regulations and guidance.

The assessment process was well and fairly conducted and absolute equitty was ensured, as far as I was able to see. Where first and seccond markers disagreed substantially (i.e. across a class) there was no standard way of commenting on the disagreement and how it had been resolved. Some examiners used the specially reserved comments box on the forms, but by no means all did so. Some used the new electronic marking forms for such comments but this seems to me not very sensible, not least because the comments were cut off in mid-sentence. The chair and deputy chair of the board were very aware of this issue and I am entirely satisfied that this is a concern that is already being addressed.

There was some bunching of marks in the mid 60s; and first class marks hovered around the 70. This is an eternal problem, also in my own University. Good first class work (of which there was plenty) should be rewarded with marks using the entire spectrum from 70-79, while marks in the 800s should be reserved for truly exceptional work.

B3. Issues

Are there any issues which you feel should be brought to the atttention of supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University?

There was a very unfortunate issue with noise during the examination process, which affected many faculties and with which the Chairs had to deal at a very late stage. Although the Chair

that I had the pleasure of working with took great pains to investigate the circumstances and to deal with the issue of compensating students as fairly as was possible in the circumstances, consultiing and monitoring the practices of Chairs of other Boards, I felt that the limited guidance which Chairs were given put undue stresss on them.

B4. Good practice and enhancement opportunities

Please comment/provide recommendations on any good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment, and any opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students that should be noted and disseminated morer widely as appropriate.

See above under B1b. Since this is my first and only year as external examiner I feel that I am not in the best position to comment extensively. It is very good to see that students on this programme are able to take courses in Epigraphy (Greek and Roman combined!) and Numismatics (similarly combined) as well as the more technical aspects of archaeology, at least in their second and third year. In general, tthe programme allows those students who wish to consider it as a preparation for further research, to explore such essential technical aspects of the field. Whether the first year sets the students up adequately for the demands of the Museum/Site report work, much of which is to be undertaken independently, is a question that is worth asking. (See also my report on Prelims).

B5. Any other comments

Please provide any other comments you may have about any aspeect of the examination process. Please also use this space to address any issues speciiffically required by any applicable professional body. If your term of office is now concluded, please provide an overview here.

I was very satisfied with the way in which the Chair and Deputy Chair keptt me informed throughhout, and took into account my observations and comments. The entire process was conducted with great professionalism and care, and the one medical case was resolved with compassion and fairness.

Signature:

12 July 2015 Date:

Please email your completed form (preferably as a word document attachment) to: [email protected] and copied to the applicable divisional contact.

Alternatively, please return a copy by post to: The Vice-Chancellor c//o Catherine Whalley, Head of Education Planning & Quality Review, Education Policy Support, University Offices, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD.

EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORT FORM 2015

Title of Examination: Prelims in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History External Title: Dr. Examiner Name: Details Position: Home Institution:

Please complete both Parts A and B.

Part A Please (✓) as applicable* Yes No N/A A1. Did you receive sufficient information and evidence in a timely √ manner to be able to carry out the role of External Examiner effectively? A2. Are the academic standards and the achievements of students √ comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions of which you have experience? A3. Do the threshold standards for the programme appropriately reflect √ the frameworks for higher education qualifications and any applicable subject benchmark statement? [Please refer to paragraph 3(c) of the Guidelines for External Examiner Reports]. A4. Does the assessment process measure student achievement √ rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s)? A5. Is the assessment process conducted in line with the University's √ policies and regulations? A6. Have issues raised in your previous reports been responded to √ and/or addressed to your satisfaction?

* If you answer “No” to any question, please provide further comments in Part B. Further comments may also be given in Part B, if desired, if you answer “Yes” or “N/A”.

Part B

B1. Academic standards a. How do academic standards achieved by the students compare with those achieved by students at other higher education institutions of which you have experience

The standards achieved by the students are compatible with those in my own institution, UCL. b. Please comment on student performance and achievement across the relevant programmes or parts of programmes (those examining in joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award).

Out of 21 students, eight gained a Distinction, while the Pass candidates all achieved very creditable results.

B2. Rigour and conduct of the assessment process

Please comment on the rigour and conduct of the assessment process, including whether it ensures equity of treatment for students, and whether it has been conducted fairly and within the University’s regulations and guidance.

The assessment process was well and fairly conducted and absolute equity was ensured. I was asked specifically to re-read the full run of papers for two students, and sampled work of others. There was a notable tendency to bunch marks in the mid-60s, with one poor candidate even receiving four 67s. The first class marks tended towards the lower end, and 69s were not uncommon. Maybe examiners feel that they cannot go to extremes in the case of a first-year cohort, but there was plenty of good work to deserve marks across the entire 70s span.

B3. Issues

Are there any issues which you feel should be brought to the attention of supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University?

There was a very unfortunate issue with noise during the examination process, which affected many faculties and with which the Chairs had to deal at a very late stage in the examination process. Although the chair that I worked with (Honours School and Prelims) took great pains to deal with the issue of compensating students as fairly as was possible in the circumstances, I felt that the limited guidance which Chairs were given put undue stress on them.

B4. Good practice and enhancement opportunities

Please comment/provide recommendations on any good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment, and any opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students that should be noted and disseminated more widely as appropriate.

This is a very interesting and ambitious degree programme, which gives students the option to work with three different but related disciplines, while also allowing them to improve, or learn from scratch, ancient languages. And while it is good to see that several students took seriously this opportunity to lay the foundations for further academic work, it was noticeable that there seemed no opportunity to engage seriously with ‘technical’ archaeology in the way that ancient

languages were catered for. Given that the Museum or Site report is so very central to the programme, and students are expected to work on this for a substantial amount of time in years 2 and 3, and do so to a considerable extent independently, this might deserve some consideration. I should like to stress that this is my first and only year of serving as external, so any opinion here voiced should be taken for what it is: based on only one year’s experience.

B5. Any other comments

Please provide any other comments you may have about any aspect of the examination process. Please also use this space to address any issues specifically required by any applicable professional body. If your term of office is now concluded, please provide an overview here.

It was a pleasure to work with the two Chairs responsible for this degree. The examination process was conducted fairly and professionaly and I was given all relevant information.

Signature:

12 July 2015 Date:

Please email your completed form (preferably as a word document attachment) to: [email protected] and copied to the applicable divisional contact.

Alternatively, please return a copy by post to: The Vice-Chancellor c/o Catherine Whalley, Head of Education Planning & Quality Review, Education Policy Support, University Offices, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD.

Classical Archaeology and Ancient History FHS 2016: Examiners’ Report

1.1 Overview There were 21 candidates this year (15 F, 6 M), after two withdrawals, and those candidates took a total of 24 papers, including Site and Museum Reports. The results this year were outstanding, with 10 Firsts awarded (7 F, 3 M), 10 upper seconds (7 F, 3 M) and one lower second. The best candidate had an average of 73.57, with 5 marks above 70, including an 80, a 78 and a 77.

The Chair is deeply grateful to her fellow examiners: internally Dr Peter Stewart, whose balanced and experienced overview, as well as comprehensive marking were invaluable; externally Professor Polly Low, who – at all stages of the examining process - was the best external examiner a faculty and Final Honour School can hope for: impartial and extremely efficient, yet full of helpful comparative ideas, and with the spirit to benefit both the candidates and the subject.

The Chair would also like to thank the administrative team in the Classics Office, Erica Clarke, who prepared the exam papers and supported the examiners consistently, and Andrew Dixon, whose knowledge of the examining process as a whole as well as of specific details was as usual indispensable. Christina Kuhn was the most meticulous AH convenor and thereby facilitated the administration of papers shared with other FHSs significantly. Last but not least, gratitude goes to each assessor for the careful and timely setting and marking of papers.

1.2 Statistics

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2016 10 (47.6%) 10 (47.6%) 1 21 (4.8%) 2015 6 (43%) 8 (57%) 14 2014 2 (9%) 20 (91%) 22 2013 4 (18%) 18 (78%) 1 (4%) 23 2012 3 (19%) 12 (75%) 1 (4%)) 16 2011 4 (20%) 14 (70%) 2 (10%) 20 2010 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 2009 2 (11%) 16 (84%) 1 (5%) 19 2008 3 (20%) 12 (80%) 15

2016 results broken down by gender I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total F 7 (46.7%) 7 (46.7%) 1 (6.7%) 15 M 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6

1.3 Examiners Peter Stewart Beate Dignas (Chair)

1.4 Reports on papers sat by more than two candidates

A10481W1 Rome, Italy and the Hellenistic East, 300-100 BC 12 candidates: 5 First and 7 II:1. The paper was very well done, with candidates showing in some cases excellent knowledge, clarity of analysis and sensitive and nuanced handling of current debates. There were some outstanding answers that were able to cite detailed ancient evidence with precise references.

Questions attempted by fewer than 3 candidates are not discussed below. Pictures, Question 1

A: Arsinoe II coin (12 answers). Very well done, with most candidates extracting the important signifying details of both obverse and reverse images.

B: Propylon of Athena Sanctuary, Pergamon (3). Answers were less precise, with less focused commentary.

C: Head of Terme Ruler (11). Well-informed answers, aware of context and difficulties of identification. Some evoked ‘Lysippan’ styles to no particular effect.

D: Dionysian tiger-rider mosaic from House of Faun, Pompeii (9). Answers were in general very well-observed, on level both of technique and detailed iconography. The context and local significance were also well handled.

Essays Questions 2 (royal conquest) and 5 (excavations in Macedonia) were not attempted.

3: To what extent do images and written evidence present a coherent picture of ruler cult? (3) There was some good knowledge and deployment of test-case examples. Some candidates seemed to prefer a disjunction in practice while arguing for coherence! Written sources were less well known, and some answers were based mainly around images of kingship. A different question was answered by some, about whether cults were different from each other.

6: What aspects of Ai Khanoum might a visitor from Priene in c. 150 BC have found surprising? (8) There was a lot of good knowledge of Ai Khanoum on display here, with good discussions of the difficulties and limits of interpretation. Objects, buildings, and people were well discussed, but some thought could have been given to defining ‘surprise’, and what might occasion it. There was some good discussion of different political cultures; and the best answers pushed against the question; weaker ones were still based on decent knowledge of Ai Khanoum at least; only one answer discussed language; the best essays thought about Priene too.

7: What was the point of the two Attalid stoas in Athens? (5) There was some good knowledge of the stoas and their architectural detail and (to lesser extent) their context and Attalid policy, but some candidates also found it tempting to forget the point of the question, and talked less about the stoas and more about Attalids and Athens. Few argued explicitly about why stoas, or about how stoas might be linked to (sometimes well-handled) wider cultural policies.

8: Why did Rome and the Attalids work so well together? (3) Some really good knowledge here; the problem was making examples of ‘working together’ do the heavy lifting, rather than talking about the relationship or foreign policy of the two powers; and did they always work well together? Some candidates saw post-167 decline; some had more sophisticated thoughts about benefactor-status; answers were often limited to picking out the main Attalid policies and claiming these enabled a synergy with Rome; the best answers tried to see Attalid weakness as enabling correspondence with Rome, and did so with some success.

9: How do the decrees of the Egyptian priesthood, such as that preserved on the Rosetta Stone, help in understanding Ptolemaic rule in the Nile valley? (5) A well done question. Some good knowledge of the texts and their contexts, and the political significance of developments, as well as what cannot be known; others handled cult, ritual, and the self-presentation of kings and priesthood very well; growth of priestly power was nicely discussed; even weaker answers had material to work with, if doing less with it; less competent answers tended to discuss the material in simplistic terms, and to write too much about other forms of evidence.

13: How ‘Hellenistic’ was Rome’s political culture in the second century BC? (5) Defining the terms ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘political culture’ would have allowed some candidates to avoid discussing imperialism and Greek reactions to Romans and focus more on the question, but most answers did make a serious attempt to answer it. Some interesting pieces of evidence were discussed, and heterodox ideas were tried out; there were also some rather crude assessments of Roman policy and its developments, but some nice commentary on Cato and ‘un-Hellenic’ trends; a successful strategy was to define Hellenistic political culture and set Roman against it; weaker answers basically equated political culture with civic buildings.

A10484W1 Thucydides and the Greek World: 479-403 BC

6 takers in CAAH: two 1sts, two 2:1s, one 2:2, one absence.

This was a solid year, with a couple of very good papers at the top end, but otherwise unremarkable. The gobbets were in general handled well (average overall mark for Greats was around 66.5). There was noticeably little engagement with the Xenophon passage (1f: only 4 attempts), and a rush instead to the first two passages. No real trends were observable. The worst answers merely summarised or failed to pick up on the very obvious cues in the texts. Essays also revealed a horror Xenophontis. No one attempted question 15. A similar reluctance to deal with the end of this period perhaps lies behind the failure of any Greats candidate to attempt question 9 on Lysander and the transformative effect of wealth. And no one in any school fancied Boeotia (question 4). The ‘Delian League into Athenian Empire’ essay seems to have been regarded by most candidates as a safe option, but few answers really wrestled with the question asked (71% of candidates, average mark around 65). There was in this, as in the answers to a number of questions, much too much narrative, and too little analysis of causation and the nature of causation. Three candidates attempted the epigraphic question (one well); two addressed coinage (question 14), both competently but without a strong knowledge of the medium on show. Minor areas of concern were misunderstanding of the scope of the Phaselis Decree in a couple of scripts, a certain degree of overcertainty concerning the date of the Contributions to the Spartan War Fund, and a general vagueness about the geography of Eetioneia. Thucydides was known well, and most candidates seemed familiar with at least some of the epigraphical evidence. Other sources, however, seem to be falling by the wayside.

A10485W1 Roman History from 146 to 46 BC

Seven takers in CAAH: two 1sts, five 2:1s

Candidates responded well this year to a challenging paper. The only question not attempted was Q4 (LH) / 3 (AMH & CAAH) on colonies, and the only question that regularly attracted standard tutorial essays was Q6/5 on the effects of land distribution. It was however particularly unfortunate for the candidates who adopted this approach that the tutorial essays concerned had invariably been on the causes of land distribution. Candidates who chose to define ‘land distribution’ at the beginning of their essays, and who treated the later part of the period as well as the Gracchan reforms did much better.

Candidates also found it difficult to focus on the question asked rather than the general topic in the case of Q13/12, where some could not resist discussing the effects of politics on religious sensibilities rather than vice versa, and others would have benefitted from a more careful definition of ‘religious sensibilities’ in their introductions. Attempts to answer Q7/6 by defining ‘gesture’ simply in terms of ‘authenticity’ attracted lower marks than those that engaged with the concept of gesture, and in the best cases discussed it in relation to political practice in the empire as well as the city of Rome. Q3/2 was too often taken to ask about personal motivation not causation – and attracted very conservative definitions of ‘institutions’. Creative redefinitions of the term ‘purchaser’ in Q9/8 to mean ‘military leader’ were unsuccessful. Answers to Q2/1 invariably failed to discuss war indemnities. Candidates who confined their responses to Q11/9 and Q12/10 to the set texts wrote less interesting essays than those who ranged more widely across the works of Sallust and Cicero; all candidates would do well to read through the fragments of the Histories in full rather than focusing solely on the prescribed sections extracted in the Loeb. Responses to the gobbets concentrated as usual on the first three at the expense of the d, e, and f; those who attempted the latter usually did well, but not all had prepared the letters to the level required. More generally candidates should be wary of responding to gobbets with vague comments on a recognized term or name; in particular the mention of the grex Catilinae in d misled too many.

CAAH students performed strikingly well on this paper, often bringing the archaeological evidence productively into the picture. It was also striking that CAAH candidates attempted a much wider range of questions (13 out of 16 attempted across 6 scripts) than AMH candidates (6 out of 16 across 5 scripts).

Breakdown of questions attempted: 2/1: 24; 3/2: 27; 5/4: 14; 6/5: 23; 7/6: 9; 8/7: 3; 9/8: 12; 10: 1; 11/9: 10; 12/10: 10; 13/11: 18; 14/12: 5; 15/13: 16; 16/14: 6; 17/15: 2; 18/16: 2.

A10486W1 The Archaeology of Minoan Crete

One candidate.

A10487W1 Greek and Roman Coins

Two candidates.

A10487W1 Mediterranean Maritime Archaeology

Eight candidates took Mediterranean Maritime Archaeology in 2016. The results were very pleasing with one mark over seventy, six above sixty-seven and one at sixty-five. This was a clearly highly engaged cohort, each of whom was capable of producing coherent, detailed and at times thought provoking answers.

All of the picture questions were answered and no particular one was favoured. Some excellent answers were produced with the correct identification of the image and discussions that clearly demonstrated a detailed engagement with the subject. The weakest answers, particularly those which failed to correctly identify the image, were nevertheless able to offer suggestions as to what the image could be and create a discussion based upon this.

Only one essay question remained unanswered (Q. 11) with all of the others being answered but at least one candidate. By and large the essays were all tackled with a high degree of confidence and competence and demonstrated a wide understanding of the subject. The most popular question (Q. 7) was answered by four candidates, each of whom tackled the essay in different ways using a wide range of case studies. The majority of candidates were able to create clearly written, well organised essays that demonstrated a good command of the subject. They generally used detailed range of examples and comparisons and at their best demonstrated the ability to draw widely across the different periods of maritime history covered in the course or to engage with confidence in the specific details of a given topic.

A10490W1 St Augustine and the Last Days of Rome

Two candidates.

A10492W1 Intermediate Latin/ A10491W1 Intermediate Ancient Greek

3 candidates for intermediate Greek in CAAH, 8 for intermediate Latin in CAAH; eight 1sts; two 2:1s; one 2:2

General remarks: good command of the set texts (reading them once may well not be sufficient) allows candidates to do well, and helps them with the unseen translation too. Candidates need some unseens practice before the exam. The grammatical questions should be practised too – and candidates should remember that parsing is always the first part of a commentary/explanation question. Candidates are reminded that leaving gaps is very poor exam technique. It is great to see so many candidates choosing a language option in CAAH/AMH. A10493S1 A Site or Museum Report

21 candidates; eight 1st; ten 2.1; three 2.2.

This was an exceptionally good year for site and museum reports. Almost half of the cohort gained final marks within or very close to the first class. No marks fell below the second class.

There were seventeen museum reports, eleven of which focused on material in the Ashmolean Museum. It was clear that the museum was affording excellent and stimulating opportunities for personal research.

Among the weaknesses that sometimes impinged on candidates' marks was excessive dependence on existing academic literature, which in some cases was very closely summarized, as well as lapses in the structuring or clarity of arguments and discussions. However, there was abundant evidence of very high standards of professionalism in data analysis, critical discussion, and presentation. Most candidates had invested a great deal of dedicated effort in the exercise.

A10921W1 Science based Methods in Archaeology

Two candidates.

A12634W1 Athenian Democracy in the Classical Age

Three candidates in CAAH. Three 2:1s.

A decent coverage of the questions, but with questions 2 (Why did the Athenian democracy invest political rights and power on male citizens regardless of economic status?), 7 (Does the obsession with character in forensic and deliberative oratory tell us more about the rudimentary nature of Athenian judicial practice or about the relationship between private life and public service?), 11 (Was the Areopagus ever a serious threat to the democracy over the period 508-336?), and 14 (If tragedy were the sole public performative genre of Athens from which historians could attempt to glean common attitudes toward women and/or slaves, what false inferences, if any, might be drawn?) clearly favoured (7, 6, 6, 6, respectively), and Q10 on the boule the most popular, taken by the great majority of candidates (9), whereas Q8 (How much knowledge of pre-403 Athenian democracy would be lost if we didn’t have Athenaion Politeia?) and Q13 (Why is it so important to study the demes?) had only a single taker each. In the responses there was a desire and ability to demonstrate knowledge of how the instruments of the Athenian state worked, but a lack of consistent and rigorous questioning of the sources and of change across the period. Indeed, many questions were answered with only general reference made to sources and without any criticism. This was coupled with a presentation which erred towards homogenisation of experience across Athens and Attica. The best candidates were able to show awareness of the detail of how the democracy functioned, while retaining a strong command of source criticism within the framework of wider Athenian history. On specific questions: Q2. Why political rights/power: this was a very popular question, and it provoked a wide variety of responses, very few actually addressing the question as phrased. Most misunderstood it be assuming the question meant the ‘same’ political rights and power, and then took issue with that, but still didn’t address the ‘why’ in the question; some others veered into other irrelevant directions, addressing the absence of women, metics, and slaves; of the minority that did answer the question asked, the approach taken varied, from the more philosophical and abstract, to the concrete historical. Q10. Boule: the most popular question, but a number fell into two common traps, the first, when arguing against, of not giving enough discussion to the boule, and the second, of rephrasing question to ‘which institution is the most democratic’, and then rehearsing all. Q11. Areopagus: many answers were focussed upon the early development of the Areopagus, with the changes made in 460s seen as the death knell of the institution, until it became something to be feared again in the post-Chaironeia world. The gap in coverage was not a feature of the best answers, which were able to analyse the position through the period, though few reflected on the role of the Areopagus beyond being a homicide court.

A12433W1 Egyptian Art and Architecture FHS Examination Report

Five candidates were examined for this paper from Classical Archaeology and Ancient History this year. There was a broad range of performance, with some first class papers as well as a 2.1 and a 2.2. Most papers demonstrated a good grasp of the central issues and used a variety of examples from the dataset to substantiate given statements. The lower performing paper struggled with both concepts and use of the dataset and did not seem to have the knowledge base to write sufficiently developed answers to most questions.

It arises from the revision sessions that most students fear the picture analysis, but performance in picture questions was actually slightly stronger overall than in essays questions. The overwhelming majority of candidates answered the same questions (particularly the one on representation of gender hierarchies). This follows the pattern discussed in previous years, in that candidates show a clear preference for questions directly relating to tutorial topics or explicitly addressed in the lectures. Attempts to answer other topics were, however, quite successful (e.g. impact of the audience).

The examination process went smoothly, and the reproduction of colour images for the examination paper was perfect. The questions followed the normal format that has been in use for many years now, and no misunderstanding of the instructions has been noted. There were no problems reported with legibility of script. As it has been addressed in previous years, it is essential that the setting deadline for this paper be kept to the Oriental Studies deadline rather than the CAAH one. This ensures that the teaching for the paper is complete before the questions are chosen.

A12635W1 Alexander the Great and his Early Successors

Ten candidates in CAAH. One 1st; eight 2:1s; one 2:2.

Across all three schools there was a pleasing willingness to range across the period in their combination of responses, and engage with questions which necessitated source discussion as well as on those which invited wider structural analysis. The choice of questions was broad, but Qs. 2, 7 and 12 predominated. The strongest candidates were able to demonstrate a command of the primary sources and their problems, while at the same time moving beyond discussion of individuals and events. There were some interesting discrepancies in the choice of questions across the schools, with Q6. ‘Did Athens matter?’ being more popular among CAAH than other schools and Q.8 ‘Does Eumenes’ career prove the limits of being Greek in this period?’ being selected by no candidates in LitHum or CAAH but by the majority of AMH students. Indeed, the absence of any serious engagement with the career of Eumenes beyond those who chose this question was a particularly striking feature of this cohort: even in essays on meritocracy (Q.11) in the period, he scarcely got a mention. The single most popular question in all three honour schools (LitHum, CAAH, AMH) was Q.2, ‘Is Arrian a poor source on which to base a history of Alexander?’. On the whole, this question was competently done; the best candidates drew some neat contrasts with the historiographic priorities of Diodorus and Plutarch, while weaker candidates simply provided a list of examples of errors and misrepresentations in Arrian. Similarly, the upper echelons were able to play a little with the concept of the idea of writing ‘a history of Alexander’ and rather than a binary positive or negative, ask what kind of history Arrian is and is not a good source for. Essays on the successor period clustered around two or three topics. Numerous candidates wrote on Q12, but all chose Ptolemy (sometimes treated very well), with no candidates writing on Cassander. Essays on Ptolemy would have benefited from further thought on the internal organisation of Egypt (it was not clear how many candidates really knew what a cleruch was). Q.7, ‘Why did women become more visible after the death of Alexander?’, was very popular in all three honour schools, but was not, on the whole, especially well done: most candidates simply provided a series of potted biographies (some very thin indeed) of Olympias, Eurydice, Cleopatra and Roxane, and only the best candidates recognised that the phrasing of the question represented an opportunity to discuss not just women, but the change in source traditions before and after 323BC.

The essay on the beneficiaries of ruler-cult (Q.9) was rather successfully tackled, with some intelligent selection of relevant evidence on display. The best candidates came up with sophisticated formulations of the reciprocal relationships established between cities and kings (the examiners were pleased to see the benign shade of Simon Price hovering over many essays); weaker candidates simply reproduced boiler-plate Balsdon/Badian on the divinity of Alexander, proskynesis, and looked to make comparisons between rulers, rather than thinking more carefully about how and why interactivity changed across the period, and the position of ruler cult as a manifestation of this. It was noted that the lecture series on Alexander and on the Successors had at times an excessively strong influence on the presentation of responses, with some weaker candidates mechanically structuring their argument around lecture notes. The optional gobbets were taken by around a third of candidates, and were broadly in line with the standard of each candidate’s other responses. There was a tendency to try and unload short rehearsed responses on ruler cult (1g) and on proskynesis (1c) but the best candidates were able to focus on the detail of the passages in succinct combination with source criticism and discussion of wider historical themes. No candidates attempted the passage in Greek, and passages 1e and 1f were relatively unpopular.

A12637W1Cicero: Politics and Thought in the Late Republic

Four takers in CAAH; two 1sts; two 2:1s.

The CAAH and AMH students showed much sophistication and verve, on the whole. Questions discussed below are those taken by three or more candidates. Five candidates in LH and 1 in CAAH did gobbet answers, ranging from the thin, with little sense of the surrounding text to extremely full and richly annotated discussions.

Q2/1: [x 3 LH] Weaker answers don’t say anything about Cicero’s stated views on Sulla, and while they identify elements of his political philosophy well, with some detail of background, don’t show a smoking gun to link them to Sullan influence / reaction; more detail on Ciceronian verdicts the better; not much on hostile views in Off for example; those discussing power as a problem were on better ground; better ones have good use of texts, and mention property; and open to other influences too. AMH [x 3] Some of the best work here, which brings detailed knowledge of Cicero’s texts and career to a sustained discussion of the philosophy in political philosophy; only scripts to mention Catilina or Caesar; likewise rector rei publicae; equally these are more open-minded as to possible influences; and aware of historical contexts; these are the best scripts.

Q3/2: LH [x 4] Pretty well-informed, and some nicely obscure references, but danger even in good essays of a rehash of the class essay which doesn’t look enough at why Quintus was important (some candidates do attempt this with some success); ‘dearer to him than his own brother’ (Nepos) – (mis)quoted once; most answers eschew an emotional comparison; some sense of Quintus as needing Cic. not vice versa.

Q6/5: LH [x 4] Good grasp of the events, and quite reasonable knowledge of sources; but weaker answers underplay Rep. and Mil.; the governorship and other things like Plancus Bursa; even death of Clodius. Not a very well done question.

Q7/6: LH [x 12] Variation in the level of evidence brought to bear; weaker essays don’t try to match speeches to theoretical precepts, and just follow the line of least resistance; better answers do actually answer the question by trying to pit various ethical considerations against each other, amicitia against truth, social responsibility etc.; Off. ii.51 mangled surprisingly often; other answers seek to problematise what is ethical, with varying degrees of success; most answers separate out prosecution and defence; but few point to the general elite reluctance to prosecute; more engagement with Cic’s speeches than his theoretical works; a few candidates note that Cicero is not Roman oratory; there was also some recognition that the orator needs to be a figure of auctoritas to persuade; there were a few attempts to declare ethics irrelevant (sometimes as forensic oratory was political), which ignore or fail to engage with a major strand in Cic’s thought; few candidates try to see Clu. passage as a metaoratorical tactic; some answers recognised that character is an ethical matter; better answers sought the shades of grey, and found room for ethics in a messy discourse, but prevailing mores of the bar were often left out, and there was little consideration that amicitia is ethical too; answers which mainly featured the treatises were no better than those which ignore them; rare was the essay which tried to see ethical attainment without denying Cicero lied.

Q8/7: LH [x 3] Failure in weaker essays to define friendship, or seek out its possible meanings, whether political or not, or to show knowledge of de Amicitia – this meant that the candidate was never really discussing the same thing from paragraph to paragraph. Better answers teased out grades of friendship and obligation, and were capable of nuance, as well as not adopting a binary worldview. Interesting discussion of Atticus’ many friendships; Caesar and Cicero another interesting angle explored less than obvious Cic & Pomp.

Q9/8: LH [x 9] Not all candidates understand what ‘apologist’ means; most candidates dealt with the bella iusta in Off. and the cases that don’t fit; ‘apologist to whom’ is a question worth asking, but not often asked; better answers nuanced different types of apology in different types of context; Cicero sometimes also noted to be a participant in empire as a magistrate; and some noted that it was hard to find a Roman who wasn’t an apologist; better answers brought in ius gentium in addition to Cicero’s paternalistic attitude; also tried to thread together a proper rather than an opportunistic Stoicising philosophy; other views saw Off as a side-project, in large part a vehicle for attacking Caesar’s view of empire; there were some good attempts to look at a philosophical project which embraced natural law and linked it to a philosophy of paternalism and bellum iustum; Cic as distancing himself from imperial injustice; good answers picked apart Cicero’s Stoic hodge-podge of defensive imperialism and the search for glory. CAAH [x 3] These distinguished well between Cic as apologist for empire and Cic as apologist for how empire manifested itself; otherwise they were pretty straightforward, leaving out some important topics; better answers saw the empire as needing no defence, as inevitable, with Cic as wholly on-board and seeking to exploit it (on this view problems in the empire lie with individuals); some answers were very detailed, but cynical (and not wrongly so) but placed too much emphasis on selfish individuals including Cic; one misunderstood ‘apologist’.

Q11/10: LH [x 7] What scepticism offered Cicero: it is didactically good, in that it sets out both sides of the argument to enable clarity and judgement; assessing everything is an intellectual challenge; its synergy with oratory; some good knowledge of texts as in de Nat. Deo.; avoidance of dogmatism; better answers were well-informed and able to nuance academic approach in ethics as different from metaphysics; they also stressed how Cic could be pragmatic and protected from controversy. There was a failure in most essays to question whether Cicero was inherently indecisive, but this was nicely done when attempted, pointing to context and purpose. Mostly good answers here, some brought in oratory. Weaker answers tended to bring in eclecticism without being sure whether this was scepticism or something else (one good answer invoked Antiochos however); scepticism could be used cynically by Cic as well? Many answers were good but really about what scepticism offered Cic, which is a slightly different question.

Q12/11: LH [x 7] Some see that Cic does not reject gods in de Nat. Deo. (and in a few cases in Div.); otherwise good consideration of sceptical persona, importance of context and political aims; lots of material deployed here quite well; good grasp of many religious institutions and a lot of the pertinent texts; at moments a tendency to slip back into the class essay; some weaker answers have trouble relating to the qu.; surprisingly few invoke de Nat. Deo. i. 10.

A12639W1 Religions of the Greek and Roman World, 31 BC - AD 312

Four CAAH candidates; One 1st; two 2:1s; one 2:2.

All questions were chosen by one or more candidates, with question 5 (on the usefulness of the crucial distinction between polytheism and monotheism) being by far the most popular question (19 takers). Not quite as popular but also frequently chosen were the following questions: 8 (asking for a comparison of communication with the divine), chosen by 13 candidates; 2 (on Ovid’s subject choice in the Fasti), which had 14 takers. Questions 1, 3, 11 and 12 had close to 10 takers.

While candidates produced solid work on many questions and often consistently, there were few stellar answers that deserved a clear first class mark. Very good work included a wide range of material and illustrated the ability to compare religions from a very specific angle. Answers to the popular question on the usefulness of a sharp distinction between polytheistic and monotheistic religions often lacked subtlety and tended to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Question 8 was answered surprisingly vaguely, starting from an extremely broad definition of ‘communication with the divine’ that resulted in a general comparison of religions. The question on the comparability of Roman priesthoods revealed ‘hazy’ knowledge of the characteristics and continued independence of pagan, Christian and Jewish priesthoods in the period. Many candidates were apparently familiar with the ideas of Stark’s book on the rise of Christianity but it appeared that this familiarity was not used well: rather than engaging with the quote that was to be discussed answers tended to discuss Stark’s general approach and ideas.

The questions that encouraged a wide use of diverse material and themes (such as question 12, on the local or empire-wide character of religion) produced a small number of excellent answers. The majority of candidates, however, employed vague generalization; there was disappointingly little reference to the prescribed texts, and too little discussion of specific places and their particularities.

A12640W1 Sexuality and Gender in Greece and Rome

Ten takers in CAAH. Two 1sts; seven 2:1s; one 2:2.

This was a good year. There were 54 takers: 10 CAAH, 1 CML, 1 C&E and 42 Lit.Hum. All questions were answered, with the most popular being questions 1 (Did ancient ideals of masculinity depend on the subordination of women?) and 12 (Did ancient women use religion to liberate themselves?), with 28 and 26 takers respectively. The best answers for question 1 showed incorporated modern theory (e.g. Bourdieu on masculine domination and Connell on hegemonic masculinity). Answers for question 12 focussed mostly on Christian examples. Standout answers for this question were those that paid proper attention to issues of women’s agency, interrogated the idea of liberation and incorporated pagan material. Questions 3 (What are our best tools for understanding ancient women’s experiences of domestic life), 9 (What did Greek and/or Roman playwrights find funny about gender relations?) and 10 (How many genders were there in the Greco-Roman world?) attracted the fewest takers, but were nevertheless answered by five or more candidates. There was a tendency when answering question 9 to focus on themes of sexual orientation or the representation of gender rather than gender relations. The best answers for question 3 showed good knowledge of the archaeological material, but a few candidates, while claiming that archaeology was our best tool, did not discuss any of this evidence in detail. Most candidates demonstrated a very good grasp of key questions and theories, with some skilful and knowledgeable application of theory to illuminate their discussion (e.g. using Audre Loudres to think about the exclusion of slaves). However, there were occasional, worrying, moments of confusion: one answer to question 11 (“Female sexuality has always been conceptualized on the basis of masculine parameters” (LUCE IRIGARAY). Was this true in antiquity?) defined sexuality in terms of biology (chromosomal and gonadal sex).

A12676W1 The Greeks and the Mediterranean World c. 950 – 500 BC

Three candidates in CAAH; three 2.1s.

A good number of scripts displayed great awareness of the wider Mediterranean background and knowledge of the diachronic archaeological data of the paper. Diverse material was used from across the Mediterranean world to discuss and argue their points well.

Most candidates answered question 2 (Euboean maritime role) and 12 (ethic identity and archaeological evidence). Questions 6 (on sanctuaries); 9 (on iron); 11 (Athens) were also attempted. Interestingly only one candidate answered question 13 (discussion and comparisons of sites). The best answers were those which combined good archaeological evidence with current debates and theories regarding interconnections and their significance within the Mediterranean world. The less competent answers failed to illustrate balanced approaches and knowledge of detailed archaeological evidence. All pictures questions were answered and most candidates described them very well and enhanced their attempts with interesting observations about their significance. Most achieved high marks for this part of the paper, suggesting that most candidates were attending lectures. A: (the burials from Toumba, Lefkandi) were well discussed. However, few commented on the importance of the section of the excavated tombs also illustrated. B: (the Eretrian gold hoard) received a few attempts, one of them being extremely well informed and considered. C: (the plan of Naucratis) was answered well in general, candidates described the monuments and compared the site with other ‘ports of trade’. Some candidates were aware of recent research on the site. D (ivory statuette): only one candidate answered this question. E: (kouros and kore) was a popular question with good answers, though only few commented that the photograph showed the statues in situ.

A12677W1 Greek Art and Archaeology c. 500-300 BC

31 candidates: 21 Lit. Hum.; 9 CAAH; 1 CML (70+: 6; 60-69: 24; 50-59: 1).

This year’s paper introduced questions that were more synthetic than in the past, expecting students to think outside the ‘sections’ and show awareness of a variety of media/material evidence. In many cases students answered effectively and were able to place the artefacts/sites, etc. in their proper cultural and historical context. The weaker answers were uncritical in their responses or read like unaltered versions of revised essays. Although Q8 was chosen by most of the students very few actually answered it well, because in most cases the students digressed into discussing iconography of vases in a non-critical way. Picture questions were handled very well, showing that attendance of lectures and practice is paying off. On 1A it was disappointing that very few students knew about Syracuse, or that a proportion of Lit. Hum. students who chose to answer it could not read the legend. The best scripts showed an excellent understanding of the period as a whole, were able to choose good case studies/examples, and to reflect in a sophisticated manner on the problems of the evidence. Even when not fully answered, intelligent questions that showed clear argumentation were marked highly. Overall this year CAAH students were able to use a wider range of evidence and show a far deeper understanding of the material, which is reflected on the marks.

A12678W1 Art under the Roman Empire

Seven candidates in CAAH: two 1sts; four 2.1s; one 2.2.

There was good performance in this year's paper, with the markers sensing greater willingness to think independently than in some years. There was some very high performance on individual questions, even where the overall average was flatter.

A broad range of images was chosen for the picture question, qu. 1, with only 1(e) - a mosaic at Piazza Armerina - less popular. 1(a), (c), and (d) were the most favoured, perhaps because they had featured in lectures, though the responses had one or two surprising limitations - for example, the inscription on the bust of Antinous 1(c), which had been transcribed and translated below the picture, was often ignored or treated superficially.

There was somewhat more bunching in the choice of essay questions, with qu. 11 the most popular ('To what extent does funerary art offer a representative image of Roman society in this period'). This was well handled, though there was a slight tendency to patchy reliance on familiar examples rather than a more systematic and holistic response. That was also somewhat true of responses to qu. 13 ('What can we learn about Roman art in general by focusing on material from the provinces'). Qu. 3 ('Who set up statues of Roman emperors in this period, and why?') and qu. 7 ('Where and why do we find mythological scenes in Roman painting in this period?') were not attempted at all by CAAH candidates.

A12679W1 Roman Archaeology: Cities and Settlement under the Empire

Eight candidates in CAAH: 1 First, 6 Upper Seconds, 1 Lower Second.

Overall a fair consistency in quality with most candidates in the good Upper 2.1 bracket (66-68). Nearly all candidates displayed good broad knowledge of a range of sites and examples; many displayed an impressive command of the secondary literature. There were however problems with accuracy of detail when using examples. In contrast to some previous years, nearly all answers attempted directly to address the question set, largely avoiding irrelevance. Knowledge and understanding of the subject was in general pleasingly good. Truly first-class argument was rare, however; although evident in the occasional answer, only in one case was it found sufficiently consistently across a paper to result in an overall first-class mark. A couple of papers where the essays were very good and showed both sophisticated argument and command of detail were let down by very poor picture questions, where the answers showed very limited ability to observe, describe, and draw conclusions.

All picture questions were attempted. All pictures had appeared in the lectures. The better answers took the care to observe, describe, and then discuss the significance of, what they saw. Weaker answers gave a very brief description, and launched into general and sometimes vague discussion.

1A (6 candidates) Carthage generally well done, though not all answers discussed both the street grid and the rural articulation, and almost no-one discussed the articulation between the two. The better discussions drew out the significance of the grid plan, and the evidence for water reservoirs and demand balancing in the water supply of Roman cities in North Africa.

1B (1). Hunting Baths at Lepcis Magna.

1C (8) Colonnaded street – all 8 candidates attempted this question; some but by no means all candidates identified this as Palmyra (some thought it was in North Africa; one thought that Palmyra was in North Africa); somewhat surprisingly, only a minority of answers spotted the monumental arch at the far end of the street (and none made the connection with the one recently destroyed).

(It was remarkable how many candidates had trouble with the spelling of ‘colonnaded’ (not ‘collonaded’ or ‘collonnaded’).

1D There were 6 brave attempts at D; five saw it was a water-driven mechanism, but only one recognised it as a saw-mill. Essay questions attempted: 3 (1), 4 (5), 6 (2), 7 (1), 8 (6), 9 (7), 11 (1), 13 (1)

Questions 4, 8 and 9 were the most popular and some comments are offered here:

4. “How do you account for the sheer quantity of monumental construction in Roman cites?”: the better answers touched on the social factors of Roman urbanism and why Roman urban form included certain kinds of public buildings, though none really did this theme justice; discussed levels of prosperity under the pax Romana, and explored the phenomenon of euergetism and the motivations for it. Weaker examples read like a slightly tailored essay on “Who paid for public buildings?”

8. “Is ‘industry’ an appropriate term for the manufacturing activities typically associated with Roman towns?”: most examples saw that scale should be involved in the answer, but few distinguished between large-scale production units, and the aggregation of many small-scale ones. Some essays were quite good treatments of the question of urban production, backed up by impressive command of examples, but without really pursuing the question of industrial scale to the level of a First-Class answer.

9. “Can the social function of a Roman villa be separated from its economic function?”: generally good treatment of social and economic functions of villas, again with good examples. Weaker answers failed properly to explore the social role of villas, or to show how it might intersect with ostentatious production.

A14363W1 Imperial Culture and Society, c. AD 50-150: Archaeology and History

Nine candidates; one 1st; seven 2.1s; one 2.2. Performance on the paper was good, with the majority of candidates gaining overall marks in the upper 60s or above. There were a number of cases of first-class performance on particular questions, even where the averaged marks fell lower. Overall, candidates demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the period; there was, however, a lack of truly outstanding work; candidates preferred ‘risk-free’ standard answers over fresh argument and the more creative use of the evidence. Answers were generally speaking better for the essay questions than the picture questions. While the latter were nearly always handled very competently, there was a tendency to be rather uncritical or superficial in some of the answers. Some answers even failed to describe the object in the picture and merely talked about the historical background. In particular, qu. 1D (a partially mosaic from Fishbourne Roman villa, with explanatory notice visible), which was the most popular picture choice (8 takers), was related uncritically to Tacitus's comments in Agricola, or to past identifications of the owner.

The choice of picture questions was fairly evenly spread, but certain essay questions remained distinctly more popular, particularly qu. 2 (on Nero's challenge to traditional aristocratic values, 5 takers), qu. 3 (on what we would know about the Jewish War without Josephus’ account, 4 takers), qu. 4 (the amphitheatre as a political space, 5 takers), and qu. 10 (on archaeological evidence for social mobility, 5 takers). All were handled well and there were some especially good comments in response to qu. 4. They were at their best when they showed deeper knowledge and independent thinking. The answers on Nero could be a little limited, with a strong emphasis on art, while qu. 10 was taken as a straightforward question about freedmen and tempted candidates to rely on slightly bitty use of familiar examples. The weaker answers to qu. 3 did not focus on the question properly but presented re-hashed essays on Josephus’ account. Qu. 8 (on the threat of Christianity) and qu. 11 (on the prominence of cities in imperial history) had no takers. Most of the less popular essays were somewhat removed from the ground covered in classes and therefore evidently outside candidates' comfort zones, though those who answered them did not, on average, score any lower.

School of Arts & Humanities Department of

Classics

The Vice-Chancellor, c/o Catherine Whalley, University of Oxford

Friday 7. July 2017

Dear Vice-Chancellor

External Examiner Report: FHS Classical Archaeology and Ancient History (Classical Art and Archaeology): Examination Board: Wednesday 5. July 2017

2016–2017 was my first and final year serving as external examiner for CAAH (Classical Archaeology and Ancient History), in connection with 12 ‘classical archaeology’ papers. This was a role that I was asked to take on in February 2017, in addition to my appointment as external examiner in Literae Humaniores. It is hoped that my successor (from 2018 onwards) will likewise serve on both assessment boards.

The assessment process for CAAH was run with great efficiency and professionalism. There can be no doubt that the academic standards set for the award were appropriate, and that due attention was paid both to individual scripts and to the preparation of the class-list.

In compiling the present report, I have followed the five categories listed under ‘Part B’ of the ‘External Examiner Report Form 2017’. There is an inevitable overlap with my 2017 Literae Humaniores report: since these two roles are treated as separate appointments, I was nonetheless asked to compile two separate letters.

1) Academic Standards The standard of work within CAAH classical archaeology papers compares favourably with those of other British Higher Education institutions with which I have been involved (University of Cambridge and King’s College London). Generally speaking, I did notice a difference in overall quality between candidates in CAAH and Literae Humaniores. Of course, my judgment here is based on the sample of a single year. But my impression was that, at least in 2017, CAAH covers a larger range of abilities – with fewer stellar performance at the top, and a larger ‘tail’ of marks towards the lower end. This was reflected in the overall classlist: overall, 4 First-class and 19 Upper-Second degrees were awarded (a marked change from last year, I am told). Compared with Literae Humaniores, there was also a wider spread of performances across papers.

One general challenge, in my view, lies in the papers themselves. Questions generally work well in testing the candidate’s knowledge of materials, but I sometimes thought more could be done to encourage creative answers and independent critical evaluation.

2) Rigour and conduct of the assessment process The examination process was conducted fairly and in line with the University’s regulations and guidance. The system of ‘double-blind’ marking (with external examiner adjudicating in the case of contested scripts) amounts to an academic gold-standard – and works extremely well.

i) Assessment boards: The double appointment of the same external examiner to both the CAAH and Literae Humaniores board is hugely advantageous, in my view. This was a suggestion made in my first Literae Humaniores report in 2015. There can be no doubt that this dual appointment adds to the workload. But it has the merit of efficiency in terms of checking first drafts of papers, while also allowing the same examiner to compare and contrast practices and performances in CAAH and Literae Humaniores.

ii) Ranges of marks: Many markers used a wide range of marks to distinguish between answers: it was good to see marks in the upper 70s, even 80s, being used in connection with the strongest single answers – and corresponding low marks (in the 40s) for the weakest.

Some markers evidently prove happier to use the full range of marks than others. In this connection, I would urge all assessors in classical archaeology to look at the ‘LHU statistics by marker 2017’ document, and note in particular the tendency of some individuals to situate an undue proportion of marks within the Upper Second category.

There were some notable discrepancies in marks between examiners in CAAH classical archaeology papers. Divergences across classmarks need not necessarily be a concern, of course: a virtue of ‘double-blind marking’ lies in moderating and correcting initial marks. But with some papers there was little or no indication of how final marks had been agreed. Sometimes (e.g. Paper 633, ‘Etruscan Italy’) marksheets were annotated with notes about the reconciliation of marks. But this was not always the case: on occasion, the discrepancies were severe, with no reconciliation notes (e.g. one Site/Museum report where one examiner awarded a Third-class mark, the other an Upper Second…). I do not doubt that marks were discussed and carefully considered between examiners. But a more robust paper-trail would be helpful, I think. The problem was particularly acute in the case of marks carried forward from one year to the next (it is understandably very hard to remember the details about reconciling marks for something read a year ago…). In such cases, more might also be done to bring in a third marker (whether the external examiner or an additional Oxford assessor) to arbitrate.

iii) Site/museum reports: I was particularly impressed by the quality and range of site and museum reports: in most cases, these amounted to a serious piece of independent research, founded on impressive (and often multilingual) bibliographies. Three issues nonetheless struck me.

The first is that – by the very nature of the exercise, it seems – these reports tend towards the descriptive: while a great virtue of this exercises lies in developing formalist and taxonomic skills, I did think that students might be encouraged to structure analysis around a critical evaluative question; indeed, such questions might themselves be used as titles for the work – and as helpful structural devises.

Page 2

Second, there were some issues this year about plagiarism (or at least ‘poor academic practice’): students could be formally or informally penalised for relying too heavily on secondary materials. Given the current framework of the exercise, I can well understand the difficulties students face here, and I do think the issue needs broader consideration in light of the first point mentioned above.

Third is the issue of length: some students were penalised for exceeding the wordcount (in accordance with University guidelines), but it seemed to me that more attention might have been paid to submissions that were substantially below the maximum wordcount. In one case, for example, examiners did not comment on the length of an assessment that, at 7,600 words, was 50% of the maximum wordcount. (An aside: are students explicitly told that captions count towards the wordcount?)

With these and other issues, I would simply advise that students receive clear and transparent guidance in the Faculty handbook.

iv) Image questions: Throughout my time as external examiner for Literae Humaniores, I have tried to emphasise the importance of providing clear and high-resolution images of ‘image questions’ in all examination papers. Each year, I have also commented upon this issue after receiving first drafts of papers – and in most cases, remedial action was taken (but not always: e.g. paper 605: poor scan of 1D). As a general principle, though, I would encourage all examiners to think about this issue before setting papers. Images need to be clear, and inscriptions/legends should always be legible. As a general principle, I would likewise emphasise that images should be made as large as possible on the page (which may involve rotating a landscape-format image to portrait-format, by rotating it 90 degrees). Where orientations are not provided in a map or groundplan (e.g. Paper 602, question 1A) this also needs adding so that students do not have to talk about ‘left’ and ‘right’.

I have often commented in previous Literae Humaniores reports that I think images might usefully also be incorporated in other questions on a paper (with a rubric like: ‘you may, if you choose, refer to the image below in your answer’). The suggestion has not yet been embraced, although I understand Oxford’s strict adherence to the rule of tradition.

There is also an important issue here with regards to CAAH papers specifically: it needs to be remembered that students on this programme may not have any Latin and Greek. I therefore strongly recommend that, in the case of images with legends in the ancient languages, a transcription and translation might be provided: the issue was particularly acute on the ‘Greek and Roman coins’ paper, I felt (Paper 635).

v) Setting and range of papers: As highlighted in my comments in February 2017, papers vary in the number of total questions from 12 to 14. Does this tally with what students are told to expect?

The range of papers on offer to students is pleasingly broad. My general impression was that more might be done to bridge an evident divide between ‘archaeology’ and ‘ancient history’: to cite one example, I was struck by the total absence of images in paper 413 (‘Sexuality and gender in Greece and Rome’). ‘Art and architecture’ was explicitly introduced in the context of

Page 3

one question here (Q10), and of course students could incorporate archaeological elements in their answers. But the total absence of images within this paper was conspicuous.

Papers also vary in their style and manner of questions (inevitable, perhaps – and arguably a virtue!). I was struck by paper 635 (‘Greek and Roman Coins’) in particular: many of the questions in this paper seemed a little too wide-ranging to be adequately addressed in 45 minutes, and often a single question was in fact made up of two or even three.

vi) Rubric: This year, for the first time, there was a change in rubric with regards to the use of plans and sketches. The rubric ‘Credit will be given for relevant plans and sketches’ was changed to ‘Relevant sketches and plans may be used’. As indicated in my past reports for Literae Humaniores, this seems to me a positive clarification – although I gather that, this year, the change was implemented without having received formal CAAH approval. This needs urgent attention so that students are informed about the rubric in advance of sitting examinations.

3) Issues for consideration in the Faculty, Division and University There are few general issues to raise here. The new timetable for Literae Humaniores and CAAH, proposed by Prof. Tim Rood in 2016, worked extremely well, and evidently alleviated the pressures of marking.

I list a handful of minor issues below not in a spirit of criticism, but rather to streamline the assessment process still further in future years.

i) Weblearn: After the difficulties with this online portal in 2015, and again in 2016, I did not this year apply for access to Weblearn. Practices need to be looked at here, since I am evidently not alone in struggling to access the website.

The solution is easy: the Faculty office should complete the full application, and then set up an account and password for external examiners. This then might be passed on to her/him in advance – preferably by telephone conversation (given the anxieties about security).

ii) Picture questions: (Cf. also 2.iv above.) I stick by my comments, made in previous Literae Humaniores reports, that it might be time to revamp the rubric of picture questions (‘Describe briefly and comment on any points of significance in the images shown in three of the accompanying five illustrations’). There does still seem to me to be a divergence in expectations about what picture questions are examining (in turn reflected in discrepancies of marks) – in turn reflected in marks. I refer back here to my Literae Humaniores reports in 2015 and 2016.

iii) Subject meetings: There were no formal subject meetings to discuss any aspects of CAAH papers. I simply notice the discrepancy here with other subject groups (in most cases there are at least two ‘formal’ meetings with conveners/ assessors).

Page 4

iv) Factors Affecting Performance: I do have a general anxiety about current procedures for assessing ‘Factors Affecting Performance’ (EAP 13 forms). The total number of cases for CAAH was less than that for Literae Humaniores, but the proportion of students submitting documentation was similar.

I am hugely impressed by the understanding, patience and compassion with which such cases were considered (with different sorts adjustments made).

But some concerns remain – and I repeat here some of the comments made in connection with my 2017 Literae Humaniores report.

• Name: Oxford is thankfully less keen on acronyms than King’s College London. Still, the name ‘Factors Affecting Performance’ gives the abbreviation ‘FAP’ (as evidently used by a number of colleagues). Is this desirable? I suspect that this word – or at least its use in urban slang – may be better known among students… • Ranking of impact: at the moment, we are asked to rank applications on a scale of 1 to 3 – referring to minor (1), moderate (2) and serious (3) impact. This scale seems rather un-nuanced. First, I think it would be useful to implement more categories (perhaps on a scale of 1 to 5, so that ‘1’ can affectively be used to indicate no or minimal impact). Second, I think it would be useful formally to distinguish between the issue of impact and that of documentation: some candidates suffered not on account of the severity of the factors affecting performance, but rather on their lack of robust documentation. • College support: It is clear some colleges give more support to students than others. ‘Documentation’ (especially in the case of non-medical circumstances) can of course be difficult to provide. Colleges (especially personal tutors) might beneficially step in here, providing background and commenting on cases. • Sometimes discussion about EAP 13 forms centred around ‘borderline’ cases. While this is of course an important issue, it does seem to me that final class is not the only issue at stake. Overall percentage points (both for individual papers and overall) matter ever more to students, and in ways that boards should not try to second-guess: they have particular importance in the case of applications for funding, for example, and not least applications for further study. • Paper-trail: I was struck by the ramifications of the new documentation procedures, introduced in 2017. In light of ‘Freedom of Information’ requests, students would have the right to see all documentation that pertains to their individual applications. Have the consequences here been fully thought through? There may be good reasons, for example, for assessing that the application of a student who is able to document serious and long-term disability might belong in the ‘of minor impact’ category; still, I do think such a case would be liable to serious (and potentially serious legal) challenge. I can see why new forms have been introduced (there are obvious benefits – in being able centrally to review procedures, for example, in documenting current practices, and in providing college Senior Tutors with data); of course, there is also much to be said for transparency. But the issue does seem to me worth thinking through at Divisional level…

4) Good practice and enhancement opportunities The issues listed above (under 3) should not detract from my overall judgement of academic and administrative excellence. The ‘double-blind marking’ sets an exemplary standard for assessment.

Page 5

5) Any other comments It has been a pleasure to be involved with the assessment process in the Faculty of Classics over the last three years. It is clear that examinations reflect the hard work of candidates, and the excellence of the entire Oxford classical art and archaeology programme and teaching staff.

This seems an appropriate place – last but not least – to thank Oxford colleagues and fellow external examiners for administering the process so efficiently: I would like to express my particular gratitude to the Chair of the Board in 2017 (Prof. Beate Dignas), the convener in classical archaeology (Prof. Peter Stewart), and my fellow other external examiner I would also like to thank Prof. Thomas Mannack and Prof. Bert Smith for their assistance not only in 2017, but also over the last three years of my appointment in Literae Humaniores. I am also grateful to those who arranged some more sociable activities during my time in Oxford this year, in particular to Prof. Josephine Quinn and Prof. Peter Thonemann.

I have learned a great deal from my experience as external examiner in the Faculty, and it is a pleasure to witness the rigour and care that teaching staff dedicate to the assessment process.

Yours sincerely,

Page 6

EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORT FORM 2017

External examiner name:

External examiner home institution:

Course examined: Classical Archaeology & Ancient History (Ancient History)

Level: (please delete as appropriate) Undergraduate

Please complete both Parts A and B.

Part A Please (✓) as applicable* Yes No N/A / Other A1. Are the academic standards and the achievements of  students comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions of which you have experience?

A2. Do the threshold standards for the programme appropriately  reflect the frameworks for higher education qualifications and any applicable subject benchmark statement? [Please refer to paragraph 6 of the Guidelines for External Examiner Reports].

A3. Does the assessment process measure student achievement  rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s)?

A4. Is the assessment process conducted in line with the  University's policies and regulations?

A5. Did you receive sufficient information and evidence in a timely  manner to be able to carry out the role of External Examiner effectively?

A6. Did you receive a written response to your previous report? 

A7. Are you satisfied that comments in your previous report have  been properly considered, and where applicable, acted upon?

* If you answer “No” to any question, please provide further comments in Part B. Further comments may also be given in Part B, if desired, if you answer “Yes” or “N/A / Other”.

Part B

B1. Academic standards

a. How do academic standards achieved by the students compare with those achieved by students at other higher education institutions of which you have experience?

The best work which I saw was of an extremely high quality: the level of detailed knowledge, and critical engagement with ancient sources and with modern scholarship, was often impressive (particularly given that most of this was produced in closed-book exam conditions). The quality of historical analysis and argumentation was also often very good (and very rarely poor, even in weaker scripts: these were typically let down by lack of knowledge rather than lack of conceptual ability).

b. Please comment on student performance and achievement across the relevant programmes or parts of programmes (those examining in joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award).

Student performance on this programme this year was less spectacular than last year, but still highly respectable: 4 Firsts, and 19 Upper Seconds (and no Lower Seconds or Thirds at all: this is very commendable indeed). As already noted, I saw some extremely good work: CAAH performances on the Thucydides paper were notably strong; and I was very pleased, too, to see that the Epigraphy paper had not only attracted candidates this year but also generated some excellent work.

B2. Rigour and conduct of the assessment process

Please comment on the rigour and conduct of the assessment process, including whether it ensures equity of treatment for students, and whether it has been conducted fairly and within the University’s regulations and guidance.

The assessment process was conducted extremely rigorously and fairly (and also very efficiently: my thanks to Beate Dignas and Peter Thonemann, and to the administrative staff in the Faculties of Classics). Careful attention was paid throughout to ensuring consistency of marking between the different AH papers; equally careful attention was paid to the treatment of students who had been affected by medical or other circumstances (although I feel that the University’s guidance to examination boards on this latter question is not always as clear as it might be: see further below s.v. ‘Issues’).

Almost all markers this year used standard feedback and marking forms, which made it much easier to reconstruct the process by which marks had been reached (and also easier to look for patterns in marks across runs of questions/papers): this is a very welcome development.

B3. Issues

Are there any issues which you feel should be brought to the attention of supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University?

The University’s procedures for handling medical/personal factors affecting performance in exams are (in my view) trying to do the right thing (esp. in the attempt to treat distinctly the assessment of the severity of the factors and the assessment of their actual impact on specific pieces of assessment). But the guidance given to exam boards on how to interpret and implement those procedures seems to me to be in need of further refinement, not least in order to avoid any student perception that different exam boards are treating similar circumstances in different ways. The three categories of ‘impact’ available are very broad; the forms on which decisions are recorded do not always allow the full complexity of either student circumstances or sub-committee’s recommendations to be captured; there seems to be a lack of consistency between the range of actions available to exam boards and the range of actions which can be reported back to students (esp. in relation to adding of ‘bonus marks’); lastly, clearer guidance

(for students and colleges, as well as for exam boards) on the sorts of supporting evidence needed, particularly in non-medical cases (e.g. bereavement), and on how to treat cases where supporting evidence is lacking, would I think be very helpful.

B4. Good practice and enhancement opportunities

Please comment/provide recommendations on any good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment, and any opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students that should be noted and disseminated more widely as appropriate.

The extremely high standards achieved in this programme must be evidence of very good practice by those involved in teaching it. As I have already noted, the administration of the assessment process this year was also a model of good practice.

B5. Any other comments

Please provide any other comments you may have about any aspect of the examination process. Please also use this space to address any issues specifically required by any applicable professional body. If your term of office is now concluded, please provide an overview here. n/a

Signed:

12 July 2017 Date:

Please email your completed form to: [email protected], and copy it to the applicable divisional contact set out in the guidelines.

Classical Archaeology and Ancient History FHS 2017: Examiners’ Report 1.1 Overview There were 23 candidates this year (16 F, 7 M), after two withdrawals, and those candidates took a total of 24 papers, including Site and Museum Reports. 4 Firsts (0 F, 4 M) and 19 Upper Seconds (16 F, 3 M) were awarded. All four Firsts were clear Firsts with the majority of papers or even all papers above 70 and characterized by exceptionally strong performances in the Site/Museum Reports. The best candidate had an average of 72.86, with 2 marks of 75 and a run of five further marks between 70 and 74. The Chair is deeply grateful to her fellow examiners: internally Dr Thomas Mannack, who supported the process of paper setting and the appointment of assessors during MT and HT, and especially Dr Peter Stewart, whose balanced and experienced overview, as well as comprehensive marking were invaluable during TT and all stages of the marking process; externally (Ancient History) and (Classical Archaeology), who formed an excellent team in providing helpful and efficient advice throughout the year, with superb knowledge of the course and its components but also fresh and objective ideas. The Chair would also like to thank the administrative team in the Classics Office, above all Erica Clarke, who prepared the exam papers and supported the examiners consistently, with much needed attention to the entire process as well as acute detail, but also Andrew Dixon, without whom the collaboration with Examination Schools would have been an impossible task. Peter Thonemann was a most efficient AH convenor and thereby facilitated the administration of papers shared with other FHSs significantly. Last but not least, gratitude goes to each assessor for the careful and timely setting and marking of papers.

1.2 Statistics I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2017 4 (18%) 19 (82%) 23 2016 10 (47.6%) 10 (47.6%) 1 (4.8%) 21 2015 6 (43%) 8 (57%) 14 2014 2 (9%) 20 (91%) 22 2013 4 (18%) 18 (78%) 1 (4%) 23 2012 3 (19%) 12 (75%) 1 (4%)) 16 2011 4 (20%) 14 (70%) 2 (10%) 20 2010 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 2009 2 (11%) 16 (84%) 1 (5%) 19 2008 3 (20%) 12 (80%) 15

2017 results broken down by gender I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total F 16 (100%) 16 M 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 7

1.3 Examiners Peter Stewart Beate Dignas (Chair)

1.4 Reports on papers sat by more than two candidates

A10481W1 Rome, Italy and the Hellenistic East, 300‐100 BC Twelve candidates: one First and eleven II:1s Picture Question All images were chosen, with clear preference for E (the Ptolemaic oinochoe), commented on by all candidates, A (the Calymnos head) and B (the Ptolemaic monument at Olympia) finding 9 takers each; image C (the ‘altar’ of Domitius Ahenobarbus) had five takers but D (the Monument of the Bulls) only one. Answers to E displayed a very wide range of results, from very basic and descriptive accounts to sophisticated essays on Ptolemaic art and cult. Although A and B were equally popular the candidates seemed to perform better when they engaged with A, even when not knowing the object. The same happened with C, the ‘altar’ of Domitius Ahenobarbus, that none of the candidate seemed to know (!!) but that produced the best results. All in all, the candidates did better when engaging with objects they did not know much about: this encouraged some very good observations and proper attempt at contextualization in a generally lacklustre archaeological performance. Essays Candidates’ performance was sometimes weak on gobbets and strong on essays, or vice versa, making the overall mark a rather blurred but solid 2.1, which accounts for the low number of first class marks. All but one of the thirteen questions were chosen at least once, with question 2 on the Attalid victory over the Gauls as the most popular (8 takers), followed by question 3 on the adaptation of royal discourse to local audiences (6 takers) and questions 9 and 10 on Hellenistic Delos and changing family structures respectively (4 takers each). The popularity of questions did not necessarily reflect the quality of answers – question 6, e.g., on whether the Seleucids championed or undermined Babylon, was handled very well by all three takers. The best work displayed a surprisingly rare balance in the use of archaeological and historical material, as well as the ability to place examples within an interpretative framework to support the proposed answer. Questions such as the one on the Attalids and Hellenistic Delos tended to be answered entirely in light of the Roman presence and imperialism, to the extent that the reader wondered if there had been any Delos prior to 166 BC.

A10484W1 Thucydides and the Greek World: 479‐403 BC 8 takers in CAAH: three Firsts, five 2.1s For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A10485W1 Roman History from 146 to 46 BC 12 takers in CAAH: two Firsts, eight 2.1s, two 2.2s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A10486W1 The Archaeology of Minoan Crete One candidate.

A10487W1 Greek and Roman Coins Three candidates.

A10487W1 Mediterranean Maritime Archaeology Five candidates took the paper in Mediterranean Maritime Archaeology in 2016. Overall, the candidates performed well with one first class mark and the remainder in the upper 2:1 region (66‐ 68). For the essays, questions 4 (replicas and reconstructions), 7 (threats to the maritime heritage) and 8 (emerging technical discipline) were the most popular with 3, 4 and 3 takers respectively, and no takers for questions 5 (BA trade), 6 (Epic poetry) and 12 (ports and trade). All of the candidates answering the essay questions displayed a good grasp of the requirements of the question and deployed a range of pertinent evidence to answer it. The first class paper was distinguished from the others by its more detailed use of archaeological and literary evidence and specific author/book/date references. Answers to 4 were generally good, with a nice balance of theory and examples. Answers to 7 were often uneven with more importance being treasure hunting and little on fishing and neglect. Answers to 8 mainly concentrated on deep water archaeology, with little consideration to other technical developments. The marks for the picture questions were generally in line with those for the essays. All five candidates tackled 1a (Submerged tank), three 1c (Libernian on Trajan’s column) and 1e (Augustus' victory monument). The best answers started with a careful description of the image and then developed this through a wider discussion of context and significance rather than move directly to wider discussion.

A10490W1 St Augustine and the Last Days of Rome Two candidates.

A10492W1 Advanced Latin/ A10492W1 Intermediate Latin/ Intermediate Ancient Greek 1 candidate in Advanced Latin, 4 candidates in Intermediate Latin, 2 candidates in Intermediate Greek. Candidates who prepared their texts well did well in the exam; unseens were usually tackled well; commentaries are better done when detailed and complete in description; on the whole, candidates did well, and it is nice to see so many students go for the language options.

A10493S1 A Site or Museum Report There were 24 reports submitted for final assessment, only one of which was a site report, though some of the museum reports dealt with objects or groups of objects in museums that are strongly associated with particular sites. It would be regrettable if students felt reluctant to take on site reports, but on the other hand the museum reports showed enthusiastic engagement with their subjects. There was a very high level of general professionalism in most of the reports, which revealed the candidates' care and commitment to their topics. Three of the reports dealt with material in the Ashmolean – a lower proportion than in previous years. Otherwise, the British Museum was the most popular source of material. The norm is for candidates to deal with an object or objects in a single museum. Where material from different collections has been used it is important to justify why these are being taken together as the subject of a report. The level of attainment was generally high, with six 1st‐class marks (one at 78), thirteen 2.1s, and five 2.2s. There were no obviously recurring faults, though some candidates took a rather literalistic approach to the part of the museum report in which the guidance invites them to consider museological factors such as display. This can easily descend into a mundane review of the deficiencies of display and lighting rather than the more analytical discussion envisaged.

A10921W1 Science based Methods in Archaeology Two candidates.

A12634W1 Athenian Democracy in the Classical Age 7 takers in CAAH. Three Firsts, two 2.1s and two 2.2. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12433W1 Egyptian Art and Architecture Eight candidates were examined for this paper from CAAH. There was very good achievement overall, including two first class papers, one of which was truly outstanding. The majority of papers clustered in the high 2.1 mark range which was pleasing. Most demonstrated a basic grasp of central issues and good control over datasets. The incorrect dating of examples, although not strongly emphasised in the teaching, was a bit worrisome, with material that had been used as primary case studies throughout lectures (e.g. the tomb paintings of Nebamun) being too often misdated; we will have to look at how these are captioned in PowerPoints and ways to strengthen temporal frameworks. It was noticeable that most of the candidates chose the same pictures for the picture questions, and we will have to consider possible reasons for this and scrutinise picture choice. For the essays, there was a tendency to cling to tutorial topics, but a number chose the picture‐based essay on a Roman object and did very well with this. The examination process was smooth. It is very important that the setting deadline for this paper be kept to the Oriental Studies deadline rather than the CAAH one. This ensures its submission falls within the expected timeframe for our external examiner and that teaching is more or less complete before questions are chosen.

A12635W1 Alexander the Great and his Early Successors Seven takers in CAAH. Seven 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report. A12637W1 Cicero: Politics and Thought in the Late Republic Four takers in CAAH. Three 2.1s, one 2.2. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12639W1 Religions of the Greek and Roman World, 31 BC ‐ AD 312 Four takers in CAAH. Four 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12640W1 Sexuality and Gender in Greece and Rome Twelve takers in CAAH. One First, eleven 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12676W1 The Greeks and the Mediterranean World c. 950 – 500 BC Six takers in CAAH. Two Firsts, four 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12677W1 Greek Art and Archaeology c. 500‐300 BC Fourteen takers in CAAH. Seven Firsts, seven 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12678W1 Art under the Roman Empire Seven takers in CAAH; one First; six 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A12679W1 Roman Archaeology: Cities and Settlement under the Empire 2 candidates in CAAH. Two 2.1s. For comments please refer to the LitHum examiners’ report.

A14363W1 Imperial Culture and Society, c. AD 50‐150: Archaeology and History There were 12 takers (3 I, 8 II.1, 1 II.2); all picture questions and all essay questions with the exception of qu. 7 (‘were the eastern provinces becoming more important than the western provinces’) were attempted at least once. Overall level was quite pleasing, but there was often some discrepancy between knowledge of literary and archaeological sources.

The clear favourites among the essay questions were qu. 2 (‘How far does archaeology modulate the image of Nero found in literary texts’), attempted by 7 candidates, and qu. 4 (‘What impact did the Jewish War of 66‐70 have on the city of Rome’), attempted by eight, but these were not necessarily any candidate’s strongest essays: a number of essays on Nero was rather perfunctory on the archaeology and/or went too anecdotal on the literary evidence, and some of the weaker essays on the impact of the Jewish War did not have much to say on the city of Rome itself. At the stronger end, though, there was some careful analysis of the Flavian aims and their impact.

Particularly impressive answers were attracted by qu. 6 on Trajan’s forum, qu. 8 on provincial loyalty, qu. 11 on Antinoos, qu. 12 on the use of anecdotal evidence, and qu. 14 on the ‘enemies of the Roman order’ (though no candidate was actually familiar with Macmullen’s book whose title was used in the question). Qu. 10 (‘What did Roman Britain have in common with other Roman provinces?’) proved methodologically challenging for some candidates, but at the stronger end had some interesting arguments; it was pleasing to see that the Agricola was well known, but some candidates had a far too benign view of Agr. 21. Overall, the answers to the pictures questions represented a similar range of attainment to the essays. Pictures (a) (Aphrodisian relief of Claudius), (b) (Nero cameo), and (c) (relief from the arch for Trajan at Beneventum) were clearly more popular, each being answered by most candidates, and generally handled rather better, while 1(e) (Library of Celsus) was less popular and 1(d) (silver cup from the Berthouville Treasure) only had two takers. Despite variations in the level of knowledge, there were no very consistent weaknesses in approach apart from, perhaps, a tendency in many answers to be rather vague about details and a certain amount of bluffing which could lead to interpretation based on assumed identifications rather than the evidence in the image.

Beate Dignas and Peter Stewart Classical Archaeology and Ancient History Prelims 2017: Examiners’ Report

1.1 Overview

There were 19 candidates this year (12 female, 7 male), and those candidates took a total of 14 different papers. The results were strong, with 5 firsts awarded (2 female, 3 male), 13 upper seconds, and 1 lower second. The best candidate had an average of 71.5 with all four marks of 71 and above.

The Chair is very grateful to her fellow examiners for their good humour, patience, and reliability. The Chair is also deeply grateful to the administrative support provided by the Classics office, by Erica Clarke for preparing exam papers and answering questions, and by Andrew Dixon for his help and knowledge of relevant procedures. The Chair also thanks all of the individual assessors for their work in setting papers, marking them promptly, and dealing responsibly with issues as they arose.

1.2 Statistics

There were 19 candidates (12 female, 7 male).

Class Number Percentage (%) 2016-17 2015-16 2014/15 2016-17 2015-16 2014/15 Distinction 5 (8) (8) 26% (35%) (38%)

Pass 14 (15) (13) 74% (65%) (62%)

Fail 0 (0) (0) 0.0% (0.0%) (0.0%)

(ii) female candidates

Class Number Percentage (%) 2016-17 2015/16 2014/15 2016-17 2015/16 2014/15 Distinction 2 (2) (3) 17% (17%) (23%)

Pass 10 (10) (10) 83% (83%) (77%)

Fail 0 (0) (0) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%)

(iii) male candidates

Class Number Percentage (%) 2016-17 2015/16 2014/15 2016-17 2015/16 2014/15 Distinction 3 (6) (5) 43% (55%) (63%)

Pass 4 (5) (3) 57% (45%) (37%)

Fail 0 (0) (0) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%)

1.3 Examiners Charlotte Potts (Chair) Jonathan Prag Samuel Gartland

1.4 Reports on papers sat by more than 4 candidates

A10067W1. Aristocracy & Democracy in the Greek World, 550 to 450 B.C. 19 candidates sat this paper, of whom 3 achieved marks of 70 or more, and 4 of 59 or less. Performance overall was less strong when compared to that of other years. In particular, the commentaries on the pictures and gobbets in Question 1 were not answered well, and the answers to the essay questions indicated that most candidates had not consolidated the paper effectively. Lack of depth was noticeable for the years 479-450 (the Thucydidean section) and in historiographical issues.

Picture / Gobbet Question

The spread of questions attempted was fairly good in Qu. 1, and gobbets proved more popular than images. The most common pitfall when answering this question was a tendency to describe or paraphrase at the expense of taking a specific detail and working out from this towards wider interpretative issues. Some candidates dwelled overly on matters of artistic significance even though the rubric specifies the need to comment on points of "historical AND/OR archaeological significance". At least one candidate recognised the item in one of the pictures and discussed the piece using prior knowledge rather than structuring the answer around what could be seen in the image presented.

1.i. ARF hydria by the Kleophrades Painter (ca. 480-475), Nola, depicting Ilioupersis: 6 answers. Most answers spent their time describing as many figures as possible in the frieze and commented on the popularity of the symposium. Better answers would have explored the sympathetic portrayal of the Sack of Troy painted after the sack of Athens, the Italian market for Attic production, and how the hydria fits in the corpus of sympotic wares.

1.ii. Plan of the sanctuary of Aphaia, Aigina, c.480 BC: 4 answers. Stronger answers attempted to use technical descriptors. One candidate commented on the monumentalisation of civic sanctuaries as a form of polis identity, but otherwise discussion of significance was limited to comparison with Delphi. It was surprising that the plan was not recognised, given that it featured prominently in one of the class presentations.

1.iii. Stone stele from Sparta, c.550-540 BC: 9 answers. Here most candidates digressed to discuss the archaic style. A few candidates made good attempts at identifying the status of the figures, with one excellent answer commenting on Spartan hero cults and material culture.

1.iv. Silver tetradrachm from Syracuse (BM 1937,1004.10), 485-478 BC: 5 answers. Candidates generally gave clear descriptions, but could have commented on, for example, the significance of a polis minting its own coinage, why a Sicilian tyrant might commemorate his victorious quadriga (including comparing to other material such as the Delphi Charioteer), or connections of Sicily to the Greek mainland etc.

1.v. Hdt 2.182: Amasis' dedications at Greek sanctuaries: 17 answers. Several candidates misplaced this passage within the main narrative on Polykrates, rather than at the end of the digression on Egypt. Greater awareness of the extensive use of Greeks as mercenaries by the Saïte Dynasty would have been desirable, but otherwise there were sensible comments about Amasis, the link with Polykrates / Samos, the form and role of the dedications, and Herodotus' intimation of autopsy.

1.vi. Hdt 5.47: Philippus of Croton (associate of Spartan Dorieus): no answers, despite the opportunities to discuss Dorieus (including why he left Sparta), Greek colonising ventures, the politics of Magna Graecia, markers of aristocratic status (parentage, marriage, wealth, victories in Panhellenic games, and physical beauty), etc.

1.vii. Dem. 21.144 + scholiast = Fornara 40 B (adapted): Alcmeonidae and the downfall of Pisistratus: 12 answers. Good responses commented on the passage from Demosthenes, the accompanying scholion, and the historical reality.

1. viii. Thuc. 1.134.4: disposal of Pausanias' body: 3 answers. The take-up of this gobbet was disappointing, given that it related nicely to one of the presentation topics. There were numerous possible angles, such as the politics surrounding the end of Pausanias' career, the topography of ancient Sparta, the significance of the text on the stelai, the high importance placed on religious matters (Apollo, the curse, the votives), and Athena Chalkioikos - aside from contextualising the passage and commenting on its strong Herodotean flavour.

Essays

Most questions were attempted by at least one candidate, and only one question (Qu 9. For whom did Herodotus write?) was not answered by anyone. Some of the more regular questions, or those that had been well-covered in the classes, attracted just one or two takers, including Qu. 5 (on trade), Qu. 8 (on the development of Olympia), Qu 10. (the non–elite), Qu. 11 (impact of Persia and Athens on Ionia ca. 546 to 449 B.C.) and Qu 12. (Athenocentrism / Lakonocentrism). The less well-frequented Qu. 13 (How significant was warfare in shaping the Greek world ca. 550 to 450 B.C.?) elicited one answer, despite the possibilities for discussing the impact of major campaigns on Greek communities politically, economically, socially, and physically (e.g. Sparta against Argos, Athens against Aigina, the Ionian Revolt, major Persian operations in the Aegean and Athenian-led counter-attacks, etc.), aside from the scope to discuss warfare by land and by sea, and the impact of emerging fleets of triremes.

2. How important was the symposium in Greek society between ca. 550 and 450 B.C.? 12 answers. Good responses to this question considered various social functions of the symposium, whether fluctuations in its importance can be discerned over the period, as well drawing in evidence from beyond Athens, and beyond the aristocracy, using both archaeological and historical sources. Light answers summarised Theognis’ concerns and the iconography of Attic pottery.

3. In what ways did access to power change for the aristocracy in Athens during the period ca. 550 to 450 B.C.? 10 answers. A good response to this question required a good working knowledge of Athenian history over the whole period, beginning with the factional strife that had led up to the third and final coup of Peisistratos, and ending with the more radical form democracy promoted by Ephialtes and Perikles. Candidates also needed to discuss how the expression of power changed, and especially the continued role of wealth for gaining social capital in Athens, most particularly through the system of liturgies (rarely mentioned in scripts).

4. What impact did the type of government have on the physical appearance of major Greek settlements ca. 550 to 450 B.C.? 6 answers. The question not only required discussion of the attribution of works to particular types of government, and the commissioning of buildings that responded to specific needs of different types of government, but also necessitated the candidate to consider any discernable difference whether the ruling power was a tyranny, oligarchy, monarchy or democracy. Better answers included discussion of settlements other than Athens and Samos, and avoided recounting the class essay question on tyrants’ building programmes. The best answers came up with some more refreshing takes, such as on the novelty of a type of government.

6. To what extent did a cohesive Greek identity develop in response to contact with the Persian Empire? 7 answers. Better takes on this question discussed the progression over the whole period of 550-450 BC, focused on more than military antagonism alone, and questioned the reality of a cohesive identity against, for example, Athenocentricism or the complications of dealing with different forms of evidence. Areas for discussion included Medizing, self-representation, representation of Persians etc., as well as mention of other factors that may have contributed to forming a Greek identity (although there were few allusions to Hdt.VIII.144.2). Several candidates were side-tracked into discussing political unity only.

7. Compare and contrast the concerns of dedicators at the Samian Heraion and Delphi in this period. 5 answers. Most candidates were hindered by clinging to an initial assertion that the Samian Heraion, was a civic sanctuary (missing its extra-mural location plus wider appeal as the birth-place of Hera), and that Delphi was a panhellenic sanctuary (missing its local role), and that therefore each of these places must have attracted dedicators with very different concerns. To answer this question well required discussion of the particular features of those sanctuaries and deities’ worship as visible in dedications (e.g. athletic victories, fertility, aristocratic display, political monuments, treasuries etc) as well as areas of overlap (e.g. visibility of dedications, why did non-Greeks dedicate there etc.), properly examining why as much as what was dedicated.

14. Was Spartan society ca. 550 to 450 B.C. a happy society? 10 answers. This unusual take on Sparta elicited the most creative answers, with the best candidates noting but parking the more philosophical issue of "what is happiness?", and then examining Spartan society from as wide a variety of angles as possible (Kings, ephors, homoioi, periokoi, helots, women, old, young, etc). Few candidates mentioned the earthquake of 464 and the ensuing helot revolt of vital importance to this question.

A10068W1 Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50

Picture/Gobbet Question

Of the picture questions (i) (amphorae stamps of the Sestii) and (iv) (tomb of Cestius) were most popular, with (ii) (villa Iovis) attracting the fewest answers. In general candidates did not always devote sufficient attention to careful description of the image. The best answers were almost always those which began with such a description (and so paid careful attention in their answers to the actual form of the object, rather than leaping to assumptions), and actual identification was then rendered less important. Stronger answers made use of explicit parallels and other examples to elucidate the image. Descriptions in the case of (i) were often very limited, and answers that leapt straight to assumed links with Settefinestre and the Sestii were often weaker. (iii) was commonly assumed to be 2nd style and descriptions were generally vague; parallels were generally sought in imperial villas, rather than other Pompeian houses. (iv) was the focus of a lot of comments about Actium and Egyptianising style, but rarely were other tombs brought in as parallels. Despite the presence of cars in the foreground, several candidates suggested it was only 20ft tall.

Texts: no-one answered (vii); (vi) and (viii) were most popular. Many answers did not pay sufficient attention to the content of the passage, and rapidly moved off to broader generalisations on related themes. (v) on colonies was rarely handled well, with few candidates having any clear idea of what a municipium was, and almost none using specific examples of colonies to elucidate the text. Answers to (vi) were almost always focused entirely on manumission (with frequent reference to Augustus’ laws on the subject), despite the fact that nothing in the passage suggests that either of the individuals on whose behalf petitions were made were slaves rather than simply peregrines. Parallels / other examples of attitudes to extension of citizenship (e.g. Claudius) were very rarely offered. (viii) attracted a broad mix of answers, some of which focussed on Augustus’ attitude to positions and Republican traditions, some on moral legislation, and some on the tribunician power (the very best grasped all of these); weaker answers generalised about Augustus’ powers in 27 BC or the res gestae, misread this as being about the census, or only tackled one element from the text.

Essays

12 (visibility of freedmen) was most popular, with both very strong and very weak answers. Most answers had a good range of examples of freedmen monuments to hand, and compared these to some extent with Petronius and/or other elite texts. Stronger answers developed sophisticated responses tackling the problem of how representative the funerary evidence might be and grasped well the limitations offered by the literary sources; weaker answers were more descriptive and much less critical in reading of the evidence, with fewer examples.

Questions 3, 5, 6 and 9 also attracted significant numbers of responses, and all questions received at least one attempt, except for no.11. Questions 4 and 9 on average attracted the weakest answers. In the case of question 4, a strong answer necessarily required a good grasp of the buildings in the forum and the sculptural programme of the Ara Pacis (and there were excellent answers); in the case of question 9, the majority of candidates simply did not read the question closely enough, twisting it in various ways. Stronger answers to question (3) had a good range of examples from which to work; likewise question (5), where the best answers thought beyond simple acts of construction by the Emperor and considered actions and style as well as individual buildings, as well as ranging beyond Augustus; in the case of (6) stronger answers went well beyond the simple question of whether imperial portraiture was realistic, but few answers went very far in this direction.

Overall, weaker papers were characterised by a failure to define concepts and focus on the question clearly, by a poor use of examples, or by a rather high rate of error both in presentation of material and in understanding of basic Roman institutions and structures. Names and offices were misspelt frequently, and dates were regularly inaccurate.

A10071W1 Aristophanes’ Political Comedy

6 candidates (70+ = 1; 60-69=5)

The standard of responses across the paper was high, with the majority of candidates producing some first-class work, but without sustaining that quality through the four questions. The very best work was characterised by an ability to cogently employ historical context, to prioritise well, and to roam knowledgeably and intelligently across Aristophanes’ work.

There was a good spread of questions chosen, but the most literary (Q4. ‘fourth wall’; Q7. Role of Chorus) had no takers, and gobbet Ai. (the least obviously historical), also attracted no commentaries. The standard of the gobbets was broadly in line with the candidates’ attainment on the rest of the paper, with the best responses staying close to the detail of the passage while succinctly recognising its significance for the play, its place in Aristophanes’ wider work, and the history of the period.

Question 2 (Can we learn anything from Aristophanes about attitudes to EITHER women OR slaves in Athens?) was taken by all candidates and reflected the broader spread of quality in the paper. All candidates chose to answer on women: the most limited answers focussed only on Lysistrata, with the best able to integrate the presentation of women in all the set texts, as well as showing knowledge of other relevant works of Aristophanes, while at the same time recognising that representation in comic drama is particularly difficult to decode and map onto wider attitudes of Athens and Athenians. For every element of this paper, an appreciation of audience was key to success, and here the question of whether anyone but male-citizens were present was raised by the most astute.

A10073W1 Tacitus and Tiberius

3 candidates

A10079W1 Greek Sculpture

Eight candidates sat the Greek Sculpture examination. The quality of the work was pleasingly high. Three candidates achieved first class marks, four high upper seconds, and one a low upper second. Almost all candidates dealt exceedingly well with the picture questions providing perceptive descriptions and very good context. Of the picture questions, A, an Acropolis Kore restored in coloured splendour, and B, the so-called Leonidas, were clear favourites.

Essay questions 6 (Emergence of Early Classical) and 13 (Nudity) were the most popular with 6 takers each. Political causes for the emergence of EC other than the Persian Wars were not fully explored by most candidates. The best answers to 13 included remarks on draped statues. Four candidates chose Question 12 (Lysippos and Praxiteles), some with most impressive recall. Question 9 attracted three examinees who coped very well with the rather large topic of the Subject of the Parthenon Frieze. Two candidates opted for the Siphnian Treasury (4) and only one for Chryselephantine Statues (7).

A10078W1 Greek Vases

4 candidates

Language Papers: Beginning Latin, Intermediate Latin, Advanced Latin, and Intermediate Greek

1 candidate for Intermediate Greek, 3 candidates for Beginning Latin (1 AMH, 2 CAAH), 1 candidate in Intermediate Latin, 3 candidates for Advanced Latin (1 AMH, 2 CAAH).

Candidates mostly did very well, when prepared materials were prepared well. Unseens need appropriate practice, as do commentaries – detail in description and in analysis will usually help.

Overall comments

It was noticeable that the marks for the Greek Core and Roman Core papers tracked each other very closely this year: almost to a candidate, the Roman Core marks were between 3 and 5 points higher.

Also, 8 of the 19 candidates sat exams under alternative arrangements. This may have contributed to problems that arose during the marking process. In future years, it would helpful to (i) remind those sitting exams outside the exam halls not to write their names on their scripts; and (ii) for colleges to make it a matter of course to give all scripts a cover sheet with the candidate’s number, the name of the paper being sat, and the degree to which it relates. It may be helpful to consider drawing up a standardised cover sheet and formatting guidelines for typed scripts.

Finally, more use could be made of Sharepoint for applications for Factors affecting Performance submissions. While the Proctors’ Office is understandably under a heavy load during the examination period, delays were caused when decisions by the Office and statements from colleges had not been uploaded to the relevant part of Sharepoint or the wrong details had been entered. In future it would be helpful if the system was used to its full potential.

C. R. Potts 24 July 2017

EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORT FORM 2018

External examiner name:

External examiner home institution:

Course examined: Classical Archaeology & Ancient History (FHS)

Level: (please delete as appropriate) Undergraduate

Please complete both Parts A and B.

Part A Please (✓) as applicable* Yes No N/A / Other A1. Are the academic standards and the achievements of  students comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions of which you have experience?

A2. Do the threshold standards for the programme appropriately  reflect the frameworks for higher education qualifications and any applicable subject benchmark statement? [Please refer to paragraph 6 of the Guidelines for External Examiner Reports].

A3. Does the assessment process measure student achievement  rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s)?

A4. Is the assessment process conducted in line with the  University's policies and regulations?

A5. Did you receive sufficient information and evidence in a timely  manner to be able to carry out the role of External Examiner effectively?

A6. Did you receive a written response to your previous report? 

A7. Are you satisfied that comments in your previous report have  been properly considered, and where applicable, acted upon?

* If you answer “No” to any question, you should provide further comments when you complete Part B. Further comments may also be given in Part B, if desired, if you answer “Yes” or “N/A / Other”.

Part B

B1. Academic standards

a. How do academic standards achieved by the students compare with those achieved by students at other higher education institutions of which you have experience?

Students on this programme are expected to (and, for the most part, do) achieve very high academic standards. The programme allows and requires them both to demonstrate extensive breadth and depth of subject-specific knowledge, and to exercise high levels of critical and analytical skills. The programme’s focus on assessment through written examinations of course privileges a particular (though not unimportant) set of academic and intellectual skills, but the museum/site report does allow students to demonstrate their competence (often a very high level of competence) in other important academic areas (independent research, project planning, extended writing, etc).

b. Please comment on student performance and achievement across the relevant programmes or parts of programmes (those examining in joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award).

Student performance this year was very good, though not (in comparison with other years, or other programmes) spectacular: 5 students received Firsts; the remainder 2.1s. The absence of any 2.2s (for the second year in succession) is commendable, and surely reflects both the quality of students accepted onto the programme, and the hard work of both students and tutors/lecturers. Students typically performed very consistently across both ‘halves’ of the programme: again, this seems to me a real indication of strength (this is a much more genuinely ‘joint’ archaeology/ancient history degree than many others in the UK).

One notable feature of this year’s cohort was the rather small number of students (only two) who chose to continue with an ancient language in the final part of their degree: this might of course just be a one-off, but it is perhaps something worth keeping an eye on (since it would, I think, be a pity if the language element of the degree faded away entirely). I am aware that another joint programme (AMH) offers students the option of taking a language course as an additional paper, and wonder if this route has been considered for CAAH – it seems (on the face of it) a good way to enhance student choice without diluting the core of the syllabus (always, of course, a particular challenge in joint degrees, where student choice is necessarily more constrained).

B2. Rigour and conduct of the assessment process

Please comment on the rigour and conduct of the assessment process, including whether it ensures equity of treatment for students, and whether it has been conducted fairly and within the University’s regulations and guidance.

The examination process was again this year conducted both rigorously and fairly, and with a high level of efficiency (my thanks to Janet DeLaine and Peter Thonemann, and to the administrative team in the Classics Faculty). It was clear that great care had been taken when marking (and, where necessary, moderating) scripts; the paper trail of the marking process was clear and easy to follow (the CAAH marksheets are, in my view, rather better designed for this purpose than those used for LitHum, not least because they more emphatically encourage markers to explain how final marks were agreed upon). The very small number of problematic cases were dealt with very sensibly and equitably, as also were those cases where medical and other issues affected student performance.

B3. Issues

Are there any issues which you feel should be brought to the attention of supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University?

n/a

B4. Good practice and enhancement opportunities

Please comment/provide recommendations on any good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment, and any opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students that should be noted and disseminated more widely as appropriate.

As I have already noted, the genuinely cross-disciplinary nature of this programme is unusual and (I think) exemplary. I have commented in previous reports on the merits of the ‘Site/Museum report’ (as a way for students to stretch their intellectual legs, within a carefully defined set of boundaries) – I still think this exercise represents very good practice in terms of learning, teaching and assessment.

B5. Any other comments

Please provide any other comments you may have about any aspect of the examination process. Please also use this space to address any issues specifically required by any applicable professional body. If your term of office is now concluded, please provide an overview here. n/a

Signed:

10 July 2018 Date:

Please ensure you have completed parts A & B, and email your completed form to: [email protected], and copy it to the applicable divisional contact set out in the guidelines.

REPORT ON EXAMINATIONS Classical Archaeology and Ancient History FHS 2018

Part I

A. STATISTICS

(1) Numbers and percentages in each class/category

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2018 5 (23%) 17 (77%) - - - - 22 2017 4 (18%) 19 (82%) - - - - 23 2016 10 (47.6%) 10 (47.6%) 1 - - - 21 (4.8%) 2015 6 (43%) 8 (57%) - - - - 14 2014 2 (9%) 20 (91%) - - - - 22 2013 4 (18%) 18 (78%) 1 (4%) - - - 23

B. NEW EXAMINING METHODS AND PROCEDURES None.

C. None.

D. Examination conventions were published in the CAAH handbook (January 2016) and re- issued with the Circular to Candidates (December 2017); the information was sent out by email to all candidates.

Part II

A. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE EXAMINATION

There were 22 candidates this year (12 F, 10 M), who took a total of 25 papers, including Site and Museum Reports. Five Firsts (1 F, 4 M) and 17 Upper Seconds (11 F, 6 M) were awarded. This shows an encouraging rise in the percentage of firsts from last year, without returning to the exceptional achievements of 2015 and 2016, while the absence of 2:2 results shows the overall calibre of the cohort.

Timetable The timetable, with the preliminary meeting on Monday afternoon of 11th week and the final meeting on Wednesday morning worked well, with most of the business of the Board completed at the first meeting.

Setting and marking Nearly all the papers were prepared in time for the deadline set by the Exam Schools. The Secure Weblearn site worked smoothly. There was a potential problem caused by Examination Schools not having one of the papers ready for checking until very shortly before it was due to be sat, despite having been with them in good time. Although on this occasion there were no problems with the paper, it would have been very late to effect corrections if any had been necessary.

1

Borderline cases/third readings: Borderline cases were identified at the preliminary meeting, with subsequent third readings arranged by the Chair.

Complaints No complaints were made to the Proctors this year.

Thanks The Chair would like to express her great gratitude to her fellow examiners. Dr Peter Stewart kindly and efficiently organised the process of paper setting and the appointment of assessors during her absence on leave in MT, while Dr Sam Gartland provided a particularly invaluable understanding of the ancient history subjects. The External Examiners Professors (Ancient History) and (Classical Archaeology) were prompt and efficient in all they did, and their helpful advice and scrupulous care very much eased the process of the examinations.

The Chair would also like very warmly to thank the administrative team in the Classics Office, above all Erica Clarke, who prepared the exam papers and supported the examiners consistently, with much needed attention to the entire process as well as acute detail, and Andrew Dixon who took the lead in collaboration with Examination Schools. Peter Thonemann was a most efficient AH convenor and thereby facilitated the administration of papers shared with other FHSs significantly. Last but not least, gratitude goes to each assessor for the careful and timely setting and marking of papers.

B. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ISSUES AND BREAKDOWN OF THE RESULTS BY GENDER

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2018 F 1 (8%) 11 (92%) - - - - 12 M 4 (40%) 6 (60%) - - - - 10 2017 F 0 (0%) 16 (100%) - - - - 16 M 4 (57%) 3 (43%) - - - - 7

While there was some improvement in the percentage of female students obtaining firsts over the previous year, there is still a major gender imbalance. The trend for male students to do better in comparison to female students can be noted across both History (M 2 1sts, 8 2:1s; F 0 1sts, 12 2:1s) and to a lesser extent Archaeology (M 5 1sts, 4 2:1s, 1 2:2; F 3 1sts, 9 2:1s) examined papers (excluding the knitted papers), and is at its lowest in the pre-submitted Site and Museum reports (M 4 1sts, 4 2:1s, 1 2:2, 1 3rd; F 3 1sts including the two highest, 7 2:1s, 2 2:2s).

C-D DETAILED NUMBERS ON CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCE IN EACH PART OF THE EXAMINATION AND COMMENTS ON PAPERS AND INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS

Reports on papers sat by more than five candidates

A10481W1 Rome, Italy and the Hellenistic East, 300-100 BC Ten candidates took the paper this year, of which one was assigned a 1st, eight a 2:1, and one a 2:2. The gobbets were on the whole well handled, though with weaker responses on the Rosetta stone, with little attention paid to the stone itself, rather than the contents of the text. Gobbet E was unpopular (two takers) and seemed unfamiliar.

2

In the essays, responses clustered around Q2 (Ai Kharnoum),Q3 (Family and Hellenistic Kings), Q7 (Variety of royal image) and 8 (Pergamon). Qs 9, 10 and 14 attracted no takers, and Qs 4, 5 and 6 only a single taker each. Throughout the paper there was a clear weakness in the knowledge of candidates in relation to Rome, Italy and the end of the period, with much more comfort and flexibility on anything concerning Hellenistic kingship and the dynamics of the upper echelons of the major dynasties. The very best candidates were always looking to contextualise the specific examples they were using, and bring them into relief by way of citation of parallels. The responses to Q2 (What did Ai Kharnoum have in common with other Hellenistic cities?) and was a good example of this, with the test inherently about moving between detailed knowledge of one city and thematic analysis of ‘the Hellenistic city’. It was rare for a candidate to think about the geographic position of Ai Kharnoum, and weaker responses made only vague and generalising statements about cities elsewhere. Good responses were able to both point out points of similarity between Ai Kharnoum and other specific Hellenistic cities, and the very strongest challenged the terms of the question by thinking about the urban diversity of the Hellenistic world and suggested the limited value of searching for ‘common features’ in the cities.

A10484W1 Thucydides and the Greek World: 479-403 BC There were seven takers in CAAH, all of whom attained a 2:1. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A10485W1 Roman History from 146 to 46 BC There were five takers in CAAH. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A10493S1 A Site or Museum Report There were 22 reports submitted this year for final assessment, resulting in seven 1sts, eleven 2:1s, three 2:2s, and a third, similar to the distribution last year. There were three site reports, the remaining being museum-based.

The majority of the museum reports dealt with objects in the British Museum, with four examining material from the Ashmolean, one from the Cast Gallery, and one from elsewhere. Once again, a very small number of reports dealt with objects from several museums, without always justifying the choice, while a few others failed to take the brief completely on board, writing more a thesis rather than a report.

The best candidates clearly understood and were fully committed to the brief, producing clear analytical descriptions based on first-hand observation of an excellent – and at times unusual – choice of material, well-contextualized and cogently deployed to address interesting historical questions.

In the weaker reports, and in some otherwise very good ones, it was noticeable that some candidates struggled with formatting of bibliography (the omission of page numbers for articles was particularly widespread) and other technical matters. The concept of a List of Illustrations in relation to the captions to the images was poorly understood by some; in some cases giving the copyright but not the source of the image. There were some examples of poor academic practice, with unacknowledged borrowing of ideas and citations from secondary sources a particular concern. One issue that stands out in the museum reports is the use of on-line catalogues, which in some cases were adopted wholesale with little evidence that any attempt had been made to write descriptions from personal autopsy; this is particularly problematic with material from the British Museum.

A12634W1 Athenian Democracy in the Classical Age There were eight takers in CAAH: two 1sts, five 2:1s and one 2:2. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

3

A12433W1 Egyptian Art and Architecture Six candidates were examined for this paper from CAAH, gaining two 1sts and four 2:1s. The examination went smoothly with a very solid set of scripts, showing a good attention to detail, although none were outstanding. In general candidates' performance in the picture question matched their performance on the essay topics.

A12635W1 Alexander the Great and his Early Successors There were eight takers in CAAH: one 1st, six 2:1s and one 2:2. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A12637W1 Cicero: Politics and Thought in the Late Republic There were five takers in CAAH. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A12639W1 Religions of the Greek and Roman World, 31 BC - AD 312 There were three takers in CAAH. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A12640W1 Sexuality and Gender in Greece and Rome Of the twelve takers in CAAH, two obtained 1sts and the remaining 10 2:1s. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A12676W1 The Greeks and the Mediterranean World c. 950 – 500 BC There were five takers in CAAH. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A12677W1 Greek Art and Archaeology c. 500-300 BC The paper was chosen by eight candidates. The quality was generally pleasingly high, with 2 candidates achieving 1sts, and the remainder marks of 66 and above. There were no third-class marks. The spread of picture questions was fairly even. Descriptions were capable and perceptive and candidates supplied very good context. Question 1B, a falling Niobid, was too often identified as an Aphrodite in spite of perceptive and informed descriptions. Students should be encouraged to trust their descriptions and engage with objects without preconceptions.

The spread of essays chosen was good. As always, question 2, City Planning, proved attractive and found 5 takers, sharing first place with Question 8 (Vases & Theatre). Question 14 (True Portraits) appealed to three candidates, 5 (Tombs of Eastern Dynasts), 9 (Greek Funeral), 12 (Early Classical Revolution), and 15 (Materials & Techniques), were chosen by two candidates each. No-one selected Questions 3 (Combination of Doric & Ionian Elements), 4 (Choice of Architectural Sculpture), 7 (Dating) and 13 (Women).

Most essays drew on a large variety of examples and considered other materials outside the set categories B and C where appropriate.

A12678W1 Art under the Roman Empire There were eleven takers in CAAH, achieving six 1sts, four 2:1s and one 2:2. This was a very impressive year, with more than half the candidates attaining overall first-class marks. The average performance was a little stronger than for Literae Humaniores, with the more successful candidates more often managing the consistent excellence that placed them in the first class. There was also slightly better performance overall on the picture question (no. 1).

Comments on the pictures and essay questions are broadly in line with the report for Literae Humaniores, to which reference can be made for observations based on a larger cohort. It was notable here also that no. 3 (on cameos) and no. 4 (on Nero) were especially well handled. Candidates for CAAH performed much better in answering no. 8 (on the costumes and attributes of statues). There

4 was a little more bunching, with no. 6 (‘Do we need a middle class to understand aspects of Roman art?’) and no. 7 (on regional differences in mosaics) proving especially popular.

A12679W1 Roman Archaeology: Cities and Settlement under the Empire There were five takers in CAAH. For comments please refer to the Lit Hum examiners’ report.

A14363W1 Imperial Culture and Society, c. AD 50-150: Archaeology and History Twelve candidates sat this paper in 2018, producing two first-class and ten 2:1. scripts. The lack of 2:2 marks reflects the cohort’s high level of understanding of the period and its evidence.

Every picture question had at least one taker: every candidate attempted question 1a (the relief from the Sebasteion showing Agrippina Minor crowning Nero) and the majority answered questions 1b (a sacrifice scene from Trajan’s Column) and 1c (a sestertius featuring the Flavian amphitheatre). It was pleasing to see that the great majority of candidates were able to identify the pictures. The best answers showed an impressively high level of detailed observation (for example, noting the pinecone on the altar in 1b and the quadriga statue in 1c) and well-founded and logical speculation (such as interpreting the wavy lines in 1b as a representation of the Danube). The weaker answers offered only vague or incomplete descriptions of the object/monument or fell short of explaining its significance and context sufficiently.

All essay questions except number 14 were attempted by at least one candidate. By far the most popular were question 7 (on Hadrian’s philhellenism, 8 takers), question 12 (the governorships of Pliny and Agricola, 8 takers) and question 2 (on the dissatisfaction with Nero’s rule, 6 takers). These questions drew some excellent answers that compared and contrasted a wide range of archaeological and historical evidence, and many showed a critical awareness of problems with sources. Question 8 (connections between the persona of emperors and their portraits) attracted a high number of first class answers. Overall, candidates engaged well with the questions and were able to adduce very good and useful evidence. Sharper conceptual and analytical thinking often made the difference between the first-class and the 2.1 answer.

Some scripts chose to answer questions that gave the whole a very archaeological focus; these tended to show a very good level of knowledge of Roman Art that may indicate productive synergy with the Art under the Roman Empire paper.

F. NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS Janet DeLaine (Chair) Sam Gartland (External) (External)

5

Classical Archaeology and Ancient History Prelims 2018: Examiners’ Report

1.1 Overview There were 21 candidates this year (14 female, 7 male), and those candidates took a total of 14 different papers. The results were strong, with 5 firsts awarded (2 male, 3 female), 16 upper seconds, and no lower second. The best candidate had an average of 72.25 with all four marks of 70 and above.

The Chair is very grateful to his fellow examiners for their good humour, patience, and reliability. The Chair is also deeply grateful for the efficient and invaluable administrative support provided by the Classics office, especially by Erica Clarke for preparing exam papers, her in-depth knowledge of procedures, and answering questions, and by Andrew Dixon for his help. The Chair also thanks all of the individual assessors for their work in setting papers, marking them promptly, and dealing responsibly with issues as they arose.

1.2 Statistics There were 21 candidates (14 female, 7 male).

Class Number Percentage (%) 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 Distinction 5 (5) (8) 24% (26%) (35%) Pass 16 (14) (15) 76% (74%) (65%) Fail 0 (0) (0) 0.0% (0.0%) (0.0%)

(ii) Female candidates Class Number Percentage (%) 2017-18 2016-17 2015/16 2017-18 2016-17 2015/16 Distinction 3 (2) (2) 22% (17%) (17%) Pass 11 (10) (10) 78% (83%) (83%) Fail 0 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.0%)

(iii) Male candidates Class Number Percentage (%) 2017-18 2016-17 2015/16 2017-18 2016-17 2015/16 Distinction 2 (3) (6) 28% (43%) (55%) Pass 5 (4) (5) 72% (57%) (45%) Fail 0 (0) (0) 0.0% (0.0%) (0.0%)

1.3 Examiners Thomas Mannack (Chair) Beate Dignas Georgy Kantor

1.4 Reports on papers sat by more than five candidates

A10067W1 Aristocracy and democracy in the Greek world 550‐450 BC 21 candidates, 5 marks of 70+, no marks below 60. This was a good year: the candidates as a whole had prepared well and listened to oft-repeated advice, for example about citing dates where possible and cross-referencing answers rather than repeating material.

This run of scripts indicates that candidates in possession of a good knowledge of grammar are becoming an endangered species. We urge future candidates to master the use of the apostrophe with 's' and to familiarise themselves with the rules for the capitalisation of proper nouns and adjectives derived from them (e.g. Greece, Greek; Persia, Persian; the difference between an attic and Attic). Severe errors of spelling were commonplace: 'poleis' for the singular 'polis', 'andra' for 'andrones', 'Celon' for 'Cedon', 'Ceylon' for 'Cylon', 'desparate' for 'desperate', 'heteira' for 'hetairai', 'immasculated' for 'emasculated', 'invent' for 'advent', 'Peplos' for 'Pelops', 'sarcophogai' for 'sarcophagi', 'Sicilly' for 'Sicily', 'sights' for 'sites', 'Theoginis' for 'Theognis'. Variations on 'Peloponnese' were too numerous to mention.

Question 1 (pictures & gobbets) The standard of the picture commentaries and gobbets was much higher this year, with candidates writing much of good sense as well as showing a good level of general competence in how to approach this question. There was still, however, a tendency with images to jump straight to interpretation without showing working (e.g. identifying a figure as a hoplite without first explaining that he has typical hoplite style armour comprising helmet, shield, greaves and spear, and describing each of these in detail). Knowledge of chronology was better this year, though candidates should be apprised that markers well know that "c. 550" or "The date ... is not inherently clear but perhaps around 550 - 450 BC given that this is the period studied in this paper" are euphemisms for "I don't know". All pictures and gobbets had at least two takers. i. Plaque from Pitsa, Corinthian, ca. 540-530, dedicated to the Graces and depicting animal sacrifice at an altar (seven answers). Most of those who chose this image for comment recognised the object. There were sensible observations about the exceptional nature of the piece, animal sacrifice, the role of the women and children depicted, etc. More would have been desirable on social status and the textiles worn by the figures. ii. Eurymedon Jug, c. 460. Answered by almost all (nineteen) and widely recognised. Descriptions of what one figure was about to do to the other varied between the coy to the graphic, with most falling sensibly between the extremes. Better answers brought in relevant material (e.g. depictions of actual 'Persians' in near-contemporary Persian art - knowledge perhaps acquired by attending lectures on 'Texts & Contexts'). Comments on the object and its use could have been more numerous. iii Laconian cup by the Rider Painter, c. 550-525 (seven answers). Good comments were made about the building depicted and the probable significance of the scene, though there was an unwelcome tendency to identify the male figure as a warrior / hoplite without first noting and describing his arms & armour. iv. The Olympias reconstruction trireme. Of the three candidates who attempted this question most wrote furiously about the type of ship, its use and possible democratic ramifications, but no one commented on the reconstruction itself as a 'floating hypothesis' and the methodological issues in combining archaeology and ancient history. v. ML 10: Treaty between the Sybarites and the Serdaioi, c. 550-525. Two answers, even though this inscription was covered thoroughly in the lectures on "Greek History I... Documents". vi. Hdt 5.72 (Kleomenes installs Isagoras). Most of the seventeen candidates who attempted this popular gobbet placed the passage correctly within Herodotus and commented accurately on the historical context of the events described, more often than not adding the correct dates. The role of the curse on the Alkmeonidai was mentioned frequently. More comment would have been welcome on the number 700 as a stock figure, which Council was implied (Solonian 400 or Kleisthenic 500 or Areopagos?), the role of the Acropolis as the state treasury (as well as an important sanctuary and strategic location) and the account of the same episode in AP. vii. AP 23.1-2 on the Areopagos' handling of the crisis of 480. The three candidates who answered dealt competently with Salamis, but less so with the changing role of the Areopagos between 479 and c. 450 or the manoeuvring of the Spartans out of command of what became the fifth-century Athenian-dominated pact. viii. Hdt 7.158: Gelon's reply to the Greek Embassy. The six candidates answering this question showed pleasing knowledge of Deinomenid Syracuse and the Carthaginian threat of 480 B.C. Less common was any comment on the logistical implications of the numbers given, or the failure of the embassies elsewhere, or - most seriously - the fact that the passage is in direct speech and how this affects the reading of it.

Essays Questions on the symposion and on Sparta proved especially popular, but there was otherwise a good spread of questions attempted, including some of those that were more off the beaten track, though no one was tempted to compare Aigina and Samos (Qu. 9) or to discuss the impact of literacy (Qu. 12). Questions attempted by five candidates or fewer included 3. (Other than the symposium, what opportunities were there for aristocrats to articulate and define their status?), 5. (What new possibilities did coinage create?), 6. (What light does the construction of monumental buildings at sanctuaries cast on the period), 8. (Medism), 10. (Hdt on Gk tyrants), 11. (In what ways could women exercise or convey power in the Greek world ca. 550 to 450 B.C.? - one excellent answer) and 13. (Does the concept of "prisoners of geography" [MARSHALL] help to explain the behaviour of any Greek states?. The obvious case study to consider in this question was that of the Saronic Gulf and why Athens succeeded where its neighbours faltered or failed).

We offer the following comments on the more popular questions: 2. Did the Athenian aristocracy lose power? Few of the seven takers thought about forms of power other than purely political, and candidates tended to focus more on the aristocracy under the Peisistratids and the aftermath of Kleisthenes' reforms at the expense of the later segments of the period, esp. 487 - 450. There was little acknowledgement that the aristocracy still held the most powerful offices of state by 450, or that the aristocratic wont to acquire status and influence through acts of conspicuous consumption was harnessed to the public good through the system of liturgies. Better answers presented nascent 'people-power' as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for aristocratic power.

4. Is archaeological evidence or literary evidence more important in understanding the Greek symposium during the period? With nineteen takers this was the most popular question. Better answers brought out the problematic nature of the archaeological and literary evidence (for example, that most of our complete symposiastic pots come from Etruria and the issues raised by this fact), though the limitations of the textual evidence were less well known (for example, the filter of transmission through antiquity, and the existence of fragments such as Archilochos' 'Cologne Epode' which may indicate serious losses of certain kinds of symposiastic poems). Several candidates remembered to consider regional and diachronic variation.

7. Was the battle of Marathon that important? This was a surprise hit. Better answers explored likely outcomes, especially for Athens, had the Persians won, in addition to commenting on the effect of the battle in forging identities and galvanising Athens. However, with few exceptions little reference was made to the role of Athens in the Ionian Revolt, or the fate of Miletus and Eretria (among others), and almost no attempt was made to consider the significance of the battle from the Persian side. Impressively, one candidate placed the battle in the correct probable month as well as giving the year (which - reassuringly - everyone knew).

14. How exceptional was Sparta ca. 550 to 450 B.C.? With thirteen answers this was the second most popular question. Weaker answers tended merely to describe a generic Spartan constitution and to go no further than Athens for comparanda (and even then to forget that Athens itself was odd). Better answers gave a sense of the sources for ancient Sparta and the various problems with these, citing appropriate detail (for example, bald "Xenophon" needs filling out, especially when referring to the Lakedaimonion Politeia which may not even be by him). Higher marks were awarded, too, for giving a sense of chronological development, and bringing in a wide range of other Greek communities for comparison (but knowledge of other serf populations broadly analogous to the Messenian helots was lacking).

A10068W1 Republic to Empire: Rome 50 BC to AD 50 There were 21 candidates sitting this paper. There were 2 candidates with marks in the 70+ range, 16 candidates in the 60-69 range, and 3 candidates in the 50-59 range.

Every essay question except number 3 has been attempted by at least one candidate, with noticeable clustering about question 6 (on elite house planning), 7 (on the position of freedmen), and 13 (on political messages in public imperial art). All picture questions and gobbets except 1.iv have been attempted, with i (the Ara Pacis), ii (the Grand Camée de France), v (Res Gestae on the removal of statues) and vi (Tacitus on the death of Iulia the Elder) being particularly popular.

It was good to see candidates tackling a wide range of topics and bringing archaeological and textual material together in answering both gobbets and essay questions. Stronger answers were sensitive to the intended audience(s) of our evidence and of agency behind it, and deployed a broad range of sources efficiently. There has been some good engagement with modern scholarship, notably with Wallace-Hadrill and with recent work on the concept of pax.

As a cohort the biggest problem was a tendency to stop all surveys at Augustus – all too often, no later emperors were considered at all, despite the period under examination extending to 50 AD. Other repeated issues at the weaker end included a failure to understand the honorific nature of many monuments (that people other than the subjects put them up); a lack of dates, especially in picture questions; and a tendency to talk about architecture in questions that asked about art. Many scripts were held back by an absence of specific pieces of evidence being cited to support their arguments, falling into generalities instead. Quite a few candidates dealing with the Ara Pacis would have benefitted from reading Peter Heslin in JRS 2007.

The number of scripts that might have been improved by saving time for proofreading was unusually high.

A10069W1 Homeric Archaeology and Early Greece from 1550 to 700 BC Six candidates sat the paper. Two achieved a First, and the rest an Upper Second. A range of Picture Questions was attempted with only one attracting no takers (C) the Uluburun writing diptych. However, there was more bunching than in most years: every candidate attempted both (A) the Mycenae Lion Hunt Dagger, and (B) the Pylos Griffin Warrior agate sealstone. Also attempted were (D) the Knossos palace plan and (E) the Lefkandi Centaur. There was variability in the answers, sometimes even within the same script. Better answers showed impressive knowledge, ability to engage with the image and to mention appropriate parallels, and awareness of the object’s significance. Weaker ones missed required information such as dates and materials, or did not sufficiently address significance, or strayed too far from the object. On the dagger and sealstone, all candidates got that they were of sophisticated workmanship in metal and stone respectively and received credit for that, but only the best also noted the niello inlay technique of the dagger and that the stone was agate.

A good range of essay questions was addressed, especially given the small number of candidates. All but two questions attracted at least one taker (the exceptions were 7 on tholos and chamber tombs, and 11 on Lefkandi). The most popular were 10 (‘collapse’), 3 (function of the palaces), and 6 (the Mycenaean economy). The better answers showed some truly impressive detailed knowledge and ability to make nuanced points and sophisticated arguments. Weaker answers had confusions on general points, omitted important data, or did not fully address the question actually asked although still containing relevant material. In general, however, this was a pleasing set of scripts with all candidates showing evidence of reading and study, and none falling below a 2.1.

A10072W1 Cicero and Catiline There were six takers for this paper. A somewhat middling run this year, with all marks in the 63-68 range. All gobbets were attempted, but with marked preference for Cicero over Sallust (and more predictably Asconius). There were no takers for questions 5 (‘two bodies’ of the commonwealth) and 6 (Cicero’s attitude to legality), and only one taker each for questions 3 (‘flat-renting citizen of Rome’) and 4 (Torquatus’ case against Sulla). There has been a certain tendency to turn the answer into a standard tutorial essay on a related topic, and candidates should be advised to pay closer attention to particular terms of the question, but especially at the stronger end there was good knowledge both of the set texts and of the general background to the events of 63.

A10079W1 Greek Sculpture, c.600 ‐ 300 BC Nine candidates selected the Greek Sculpture option. The results were very pleasing indeed, 3 candidates achieved first class marks, the remainder marks of 65 and above. All candidates dealt very well indeed with the picture questions, offering very perceptive descriptions and useful context. The essays were of equally high standard. Question 2 (Kouroi) was the most popular and chosen by 7 candidates. Question 7 (Athenian grave stelai) was the second favourite, as in the other essays, almost all candidates put some thought into the matter rather than reeling off facts. Question 12 (Tombs of eastern dynasts) appealed to three candidates. Questions 4 (Kritian Boy) and 6 (the importance of Polykleitos) found 3 takers each eliciting intelligent thought on the Early Classical Revolution and some superb context. No-one liked essays 8 and 9 (Sculptures of females, Role and standing of the Master Sculptor).

General Comments: The panel dealt with two complaints and ensured that no candidate was disadvantaged in the affected papers and subsequent examinations.

Classical Archaeology and Ancient History FHS 2014: Examiners’ Report

1.1 Overview There were 23 candidates (15 F, 7 M), taking a total of 23 different papers, including Site and Museum Reports. The results this year were solid, with only two Firsts awarded (1 F, 1 M), 20 2.1s (14 F, 6 M) but no 2.2s.

The Chair is deeply grateful to her fellow examiners: Dr Charlotte Potts, whose consistent and cheerful efficiency and good judgement were of enormous help, and the external examiner, Dr , for taking on this role for a year when timetabling constraints made it impossible for Dr to serve her third term, for very helpful observations on examination papers at the drafting stage and for being so efficient, swift, thoughtful and sympathetic throughout the process. The Chair would also like to thank Dr Katherine Clarke, Chair of Greats, for her help with many issues.

The Chair is also very grateful indeed for the administrative support provided in the Classics Office, by Erica Clarke who was taking on a new role in preparing exam papers, and by Andrew Dixon in managing the examination process from start to finish and knowing not only all the answers but sometimes also the questions to be asked. The Chair also thanks all the individual assessors for hard work in setting papers and marking them promptly to a tight deadline.

1.2 Statistics

I I.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2014 2 (9%) 20 (91%) 22 2013 4 (18%) 18 (78%) 1 (4%) 23 2012 3 (19%) 12 (75%) 1 (4%) 16 2011 4 (20%) 14 (70%) 2 (10%) 20 2010 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 2009 2 (11%) 16 (84%) 1 (5%) 19 2008 3 (20%) 12 (80%) 15 2007 3 (20%) 17 (73%) 2 (9%) 22 2006 3 (20%) 11 (73%) 1 (5%) 15

2014 results broken down by gender: I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total

F 1 (7%) 14 (93%) 15

M 1 (14%) 6 (86%) 7

1.3 Examiners Charlotte Potts Anna Clark (Chair) (External)

1.4 Reports on papers sat by more than 2 candidates

0712 Greek Art and Archaeology c.500-300 BC

The Greek Art and Archaeology paper was sat by 10 candidates. The overall quality was very good indeed: 3 candidates achieved first class marks, and 7 papers scored 65 and above. Most candidates dealt exceedingly well with the picture questions and provided capable descriptions and very good context. Picture questions A (Temple of Athena Nike) and D (Hermes of Praxiteles) were the clear favourites with 10 takers each, followed by B (Douris cup showing a symposium), which was selected by 7 examinees. The Greek silver coin E was not chosen by anyone.

There was a good spread of answers to the essay questions. Questions 7 (figure- decoration and function of Greek pots), 10 (drama on South Italian vases), and 13 (change of style in the early 5th century B.C.) were each answered by 4 students. 2 (Hippodamus), 3 (public building in the agora), 14, inviting a discussion of a range of sculptures, and 16 (Classical grave reliefs) were chosen by 3 examinees. 4 (theatre architecture), 11 (chronology), 12 (portraits), and 15 (Aigina pediments) did not attract any takers.

0715 Art under the Roman Empire

10 CAAH and 14 Lit Hum FHS candidates sat the exam this year. There were four 1st class papers, sixteen 2.1s, and four 2.2s. The 10 CAAH papers were awarded one 1st, eight 2.1s and one 2.2. The artworks in the picture questions were almost all correctly identified, and all five choices were relatively popular. All of the essay questions were attempted by at least one candidate: Questions 2 and 4 were the most popular, with 17 and 12 answers, while the least popular were Questions 8 and 11. There were some excellent essays that showed originality, independent reading, and an impressive ability to synthesise and analyse information. Some consistent errors, however, emerged across the whole cohort. The most general was citation and discussion of artworks that predate the start of the course in AD 14, perhaps from familiarity with Augustan pieces; indeed, among the CAAH scripts, there was a noticeable tendency to recycle material from the Roman Core classes, whether relevant or not. Some repeated, tangential points may stem from crossover with material from the Nero to Hadrian paper. There was also a tendency to ignore the word ‘art’ in some questions, and write answers about architecture and topography instead. With regard to specific questions, Question 2, on imperial succession in early imperial art, elicited a wide variety of definitions of ‘early,’ including answers going up to the Antonine, Severan, and even Tetratchic periods, suggesting that the question was sometimes read with too much haste or not in its entirety. Question 4, on Trajanic art, frequently revealed that candidates’ knowledge of the art of Trajan’s Forum began and ended with the Column of Trajan. Answers to Question 6, on statues in public spaces, omitted statues of deities, personifications, athletes and other decorative statuary, and thus missed an opportunity to show a range of knowledge. Overall, there was an over-reliance on material from tutorials and lectures that would have been better balanced by wider reading.

0856 The Formation of the Islamic World

Three candidates sat this paper. This paper will not be available in CAAH next year.

0909 Athenian Democracy in the Classical Age

There were 18 candidates for this paper (12 Lit. Hum.; 5 CAAH; 1 AMH). Of these 4 Lit. Hum. Candidates had First Class marks; 3 candidates (1 Lit. Hum., 1 AMH) got 2.2 marks; the rest had 2.1 marks. Essays (where answered by three or more candidates); in general major weaknesses were – a failure to define terms, and a failure to answer the question, specifically the democratic angle: 3. (‘Was corruption a problem for Athenian democracy?’) Good answers could marshal and use a lot of detail (including Ath.Pol. 27), especially on Athenian oversight institutions; that corruption was an accusation sometimes levelled at opponents was recognized, but not properly investigated. The main problem here was a failure to define corruption at the outset, which led to consideration of areas of malfeasance or political opportunism which were not really germane to the question. Also a problem was the alternation between using comedy and oratory as sources, with no methodological distinction. 7. (‘Are the Attic demes better understood as territorial units, or as political communities?’) Answers here in general needed to think more about what a territorial community might be. Some of what was discussed under the rubric of ‘political’ community had territorial implications which candidates failed to see. Bouleutic quotas were not discussed nearly enough (and more by CAAH candidates than others). On this question in particular the diachronic approach taken by some proved to be useful. Acharnai is not “remote” from Athens, and Attica did not contain 300 demes. 8. (‘What difference to our understanding of Athenian democracy would it make if we could reliably calculate the number of slaves in Athens (including Attica)?’ Candidates all thought that bulk quantification of slaves was not enough by itself, and argued that numbers nuanced or articulated by various criteria would be more helpful. Yet too many candidates ended up writing what this might tell us about Athenian society as opposed to Athenian democracy, which was what the question wanted to know about. Levels of knowledge were impressive in general. 9. (‘Was the Athenian economy based on an imperialistic or predatory relationship to the outside world?’) The Athenian economy needed defining here at the outset; candidates knew a lot, but even better answers tended to list or run through a range of fiscal, commercial or economic developments (and were not always aware that they were discussing different categories of activity), but these did not add up to a convincing picture (or any picture) of the wider Athenian economy, and thus answers tended to underachieve. Equally, resources are not the same as an economy, or predatory the same as dirigiste methods, as some candidates thought. 10. (‘What place was there for women in Athenian democracy?’) Again there needed to be more focus on discussing the place of women in the democracy, not in society in general. There was also some worrying elision of (or perhaps a weak grasp of the boundaries between) reality and ideology. Candidates deployed broadly the same sets of evidence, but sometimes did so to very good effect. 11. (‘What can we learn about the Athenian democracy from evidence related to burial?’) Well done in general, aside from some reluctance to probe categories, and resort to assertion and generalization. Here again, a diachronic approach (and reference to metics) was well handled. 13. (‘How efficiently did Athenian political institutions integrate individual expertise?’) Not badly done at all, with notable efforts to try to answer the question. Some good work failed to rise further due to an apparent lack of awareness of the relevant scholarship.

There are few comments which can be made specifically about the CAAH contingent, to whom all the points made above apply; the grasp of topics and scholarship on them was perfectly decent. But there was a sense that these five scripts did not display as great a knowledge of the evidence as the majority of the Lit. Hum. Scripts; there was also a much greater tendency to mangle technical and proper names, or to introduce neologisms, like isokratia. For these reasons the agreed marks for CAAH papers, while all lodged solidly in the 2.1 bracket, were as a cohort markedly below those for Lit. Hum., whose candidates in general represented an encouragingly good year. That said, the weakest papers were all in Lit. Hum. and AMH.

0910 Alexander the Great and his Early Successors

39 candidates took the paper (17 LitHum; 1 COS; 12 CAAH; 9 AMH). In CAAH there were two 1sts and ten 2.1s. All questions apart were attempted with the only exception of the question on representations of India and Indians; this exception is surprising given that India appears regularly in past papers and the intellectual challenge the question presents would have been a good investment for takers. The most popular questions were the ones on Eumenes’ worthiness, which solicited some excellent answers; most candidates correctly emphasised his easy access to money, thanks to the Royal letters, which empowered him in Asia. It was also good to see that takers thought critically about the exact meaning of “worthiness” and many illustrated subtle understanding of the situation after Alexander’s death. Another very popular question was the one on Alexander’s divine honours and their relation, or lack thereof, to the Successors’ honours. Some candidates were too prone to see Alexander as actively imposing his own cult, even by a supposed decree. Only one candidate discussed the crucial counter-evidence in Hypereides’s Funeral Speech, 23ff. By making Alexander the initiator of his own cult, candidates tended to mark him off from the Succesors’ cults, which were predominantly presented as ‘offered from the bottom up’. Regardless of this tendency, many candidates disagreed with Chaniotis’ statement and pointed to the strong impact of Alexander’s precedent on any form of ruler cult after his death. There were also good numbers of takers for the questions on whether we can ever use the vulgate to correct Arrian and on how Alexander and the Successors tried to influence public opinion. It was good to attract essays on the validity of vulgate sources, but the range of examples was remarkably confined, usually honing in on the massacre of the Branchidae, and here not always accurately. Knowledge and careful thinking about Arrian’s strengths and weaknesses, however, characterised almost all answers. With regard to the influencing of public opinion answers varied significantly in quality and scope. Too many answers focused on only one or two aspects – no candidate covered coins, art, dedications, speeches and so on all in one essay. The question on evidence for a change in Alexander’s personality was mostly answered with a damaging lack of reference to Arrian Book 7 and Plutarch, let alone to the Ephippus fragments and the enigmatic Diaries. Candidates concentrated on the question of ‘orientalising’ from 328-7 onwards. A similar tendency was visible in essays on the city-foundations, several of which assured examiners that they were agents in the East for ‘turning grain into coin’, a quick judgement that begs quite a few questions. More evidence of independent thinking and scepticism would be advisable. The CAAH answers divided into a highly marked group who prospered by addressing the question explicitly, in a well- focused and well-structured way. They presented very good and comprehensive knowledge. The lower-marked answers lacked sophistication with regard to all these aspects, above all the ability to focus on and analyse the specific question at hand.

0911 Cicero: Politics and Thought in the Late Republic

There were 7 candidates in CAAH, all of whom gained a 2.1mark in this paper. Across the two schools all gobbet answers except for 1g (the passage in Latin) were attempted, with passages (a) and (e) proving the most popular. Over half the CAAH candidates attempted the gobbets, whereas fewer than half the LitHum candidates did so (9 candidates in total attempted the gobbets). Except for one instance in each school where a candidate performed significantly worse on the gobbets than on the rest of the paper, the performances on the gobbets were broadly in line with candidates’ performances on the rest of the paper. The weakest answers failed to locate the passage properly, but most candidates were good on context (although a large number of answers slightly misdated speeches and key events and there was an underlying sense of insecurity on the core chronological narrative of the 60s-40s BC both here and in the essays; de imperio was frequently dated to 67 rather than 66, etc.). In most cases candidates were better on context (literary and or historical), but tended to fall down to varying degrees on identifying and exploring the core issues raised by the passage, whether personal, political, historical, or intellectual/philosophical. The better answers compared the passage in question with other texts on the same issue(s). Across the two schools every essay question was attempted except for question 8 (‘Why did stoicism have so much appeal for the Roman elite?’), with no CAAH candidate attempting question 6 either (‘Were Cicero’s rhetorical treatises about oratory, or Cicero?’). Questions 10 (‘To what extent was forensic oratory ‘political’ in the late Republic?’) and 11 (‘How useful is the Ciceronian evidence for Roman attitudes to imperial rule in this period?’) were much the most popular (11 takers each), with questions 2 (‘Which played the more defining role in Cicero’s career: his status as new man, or his defeat of Catiline?’), 4 (‘What was it about Atticus’ friendship that mattered so much to Cicero?’) and 7 (‘Why did Cicero so detest Caesar the politician?’) also proving popular. There were few outstanding scripts. The best answers to question 10 ranged widely across the evidence and considered the variety of ways in which such oratory might be political or politicised, with reference both to content and context of speeches; the best answers to 11 again ranged widely, using the full range of types of Ciceronian evidence, and approaching them and Cicero critically (the implicit requirement of the question to consider Cicero’s typicality was ducked to varying degrees, but could be answered by critical reading of Cicero without necessarily requiring in depth knowledge of alternative sources). Some of the strongest answers were to be found to questions 2 and 4: in the case of Q.2, candidates regularly made good efforts to build imaginative arguments, grasping the importance of reputation, image and self- fashioning, and often taking the significance of novitas well beyond 63; in the case of Q.4 the answers rarely problematised the concept of friendship, but there were a number of answers that showed an impressive grasp of the evidence for the relationship and explored it in some depth. Overall this was a solid, rather than exceptional year. There were few very poor answers, but few outstanding ones either. The best answers were characterised by strong and coherent argumentation, the intelligent selection of a wide range of Ciceronian material (NB this does not require huge numbers of examples, nor immense detail in every case), an awareness of the limitations of each evidence type, and a good grasp of the whole of Cicero’s career.

0913 Religions of the Greek and Roman World 31 BC - AD 312

18 candidates took the paper, 13 from Lit Hum, one from CML, three from CAAH and one from AMH. The three CAAH candidates all gained 2.1 marks. At least one candidate attempted every question, but there was a marked bunching around the questions on the perennially popular topics of Ovid and of the persecution of Christians. The best answers were excellent: impressively detailed knowledge of the prescribed texts was combined with a keen and nuanced engagement with the questions. A real interest was shown in identifying the historical problems related to each question, and there was much zest and imagination in the deployment of evidence which promised to be useful in solving these. Future candidates would do well to emulate the thoughtful application of lateral thinking which the most successful answers exhibited: Pausanias can thus be used to help assess Ovid's evidence for festive vitality, or Lucian to help define the limits of government action against Christians. Many scripts which showed good knowledge and genuine interest in the subject did not achieve the marks that they might have done. The reasons are the same as those identified in previous examiners' reports: too many candidates answered the question they had hoped to see rather than the one actually presented to them; too many candidates presented irrelevant material in their attempt to demonstrate erudition; too many candidates dwelt too expansively on the obvious (Caligula's alleged interest in his divinity derailed a number of promising answers to the question on emperor worship); too many candidates struggled ingeniously to find opportunities to reproduce tutorial essays (Ovid, as in some previous years, tended to attract such efforts); too few candidates had the confidence to believe that they had fresh and interesting things to say in answer to the questions, even though their answers contained much of real interest. It was particularly pleasing when candidates were able to bring to bear relevant information from their own independent reading or research; it was a slight disappointment that the CAAH candidates did not bring material culture more effectively into their answers. The paper remains one of the most challenging of the ancient history options, and it was very gratifying to see so many candidates rise to the challenge; a more positive approach, and above all a commitment to patiently imaginative analysis of the evidence, would have yielded significantly greater rewards for a number of the candidates who were left with solid 2:1 marks.

0914 Sex and Gender in Greece and Rome

This was a good, if not outstanding year. Most essays were marked by clear, often strong arguments, and some by considerable ingenuity and intellectual creativity. Not all candidates displayed the required level of familiarity with the set texts, though a few showed knowledge not only of the prescribed sources but also an impressive range of other material. Disappointingly few essays, however, discussed any of the sources (literary or material) in any detail, or (among the Lit. Hum./CLE scripts) demonstrated evidence of knowledge of the ancient languages; those that did were moreover marred by inaccuracies. Several candidates made pleasing use of theoretical work on gender and sexuality, though some too struggled with basic concepts such as ‘liberation’ and ‘orientation’, which should have been familiar to all students taking the course.

In terms of individual questions, we would only draw attention to the fact that Q.2 (‘Do we learn more about Athenian masculinity from tragedy or comedy?’) was attempted by more than 2/3 of the candidates, although it was clear that a significant minority were underprepared to tackle it either in terms of their knowledge of the set texts or of theoretical approaches to masculinity; candidates are advised to consider the feasibility of the question in addition to the familiarity of the topic.

All questions on the paper were answered by the 8 CAAH candidates with the exception of Q.3 (‘ “Juvenal VI is a brutal condemnation of Roman men.” Do you agree)? and Q.4 (‘How do Roman attitudes to women’s roles in public life change over time?’): Q.1 (‘What factor had the biggest impact on gender relations in the archaic period?’) attracted 1 taker, Q.2, 6; Q.5 (‘Why did early Christian theologians write letters to women?’), 3; Q.6 (‘How different were Greek and Roman attitudes to marriage?’), 2; Q.7 (‘Can ancient art reinforce what we learn about gender relations from ancient texts?’), 5; Q.8 (‘Was Greek and Roman domestic space differently gendered?’), 1; Q.9 (‘Did religion play a central role in the subordination of women in the Greek AND/OR Roman worlds?’), 5; Q.10 (‘How far do ancient gynaecological texts fulfil the Hippocratic ideal of evidence- based medicine?’), 2; Q.11 (‘Did sexual orientation exist in the ancient world?’), 5; Q.12 (‘Did women in antiquity aspire to liberation?’), 2.

0917 Politics, Society and Culture Nero to Hadrian

33 candidates sat the paper (23 LitHum, 9 CAAH, 1 AMH), of whom 6 obtained a First (1 in CAAH) and 27 got 2:1 marks. The standard of this year’s cohort was pleasantly good, which is underlined by the absence of any overall 2:2 marks. Candidates produced competent essays, which displayed good knowledge of the period and the set texts. However, there was a dearth of truly exceptional scripts characterized by fresh thinking or creative approaches to the questions. All questions were attempted, except Q12 on Juvenal’s Satires. The most favoured questions were Q14 on Rome’s policy towards religious tensions in the provinces (20 takers), Q5 on Rome’s attitude towards Hellenic culture under Hadrian (19 takers), Q1 on the quinquennium Neronis (17 takers) and Q2 on the transmission of imperial power between 68 and 70 AD (17 takers). These questions elicited essays of a mixed quality. The weaker answers relied too heavily on rehashed tutorial work (particularly answers to Q14 often had a feel of a staple essay on Jews and Christians) and did not pay enough attention to the relevance of the adduced material and the construction of a sophisticated argument, while the strongest ones demonstrated excellent knowledge of the period and exceptional grasp of the evidence, analysed key terms and concepts of the question and engaged well with debates in modern scholarship (e.g. on the quinquennium Neronis or Hadrian’s Hellenism). Similarly popular were Q4 on the archaeological evidence from Trajan’s reign for the study of imperial ‘virtues’ (14 takers), where the stronger candidates went beyond the mere listing of monuments and offered a nuanced analysis of the usefulness of the material and the mechanisms of imperial representation, as well as Q9 on frontier policy (12 takers), which, however, generated answers plagued by a lack of detailed knowledge of the expansion of the Roman Empire during this period. Many answers on Trajan’s monuments would have further benefited from closer attention to the issues of authorship and audience. The questions which attracted fewer takers, but produced well-informed essays with incisive arguments (with a good strike rate of marks in the upper second and first class) were Q6 on the Senate, Q7 on the Roman plebs, Q8 on Dio Chrysostom’s speeches, and Q13 on Agricola’s career. Answers to Q3 (on Flavian government) and Q10 (on the ‘Romanization’ of Gaul and Britain) tended to be marred by a lack of conceptual clarity of the terms ‘autocracy’ and ‘Romanization’ respectively. It may be worth notice that a number of candidates was considerably more comfortable with the reign of Domitian than with those of the earlier Flavians. With Q11 on free speech, candidates seemed much happier discussing particular episodes than identifying and analysing structural features of the principate that impacted on the practice of political discourse; many answers were unnecessarily limited to the freedom of expression in the meetings of the Senate. Overall, it was gratifying to see that all candidates wrote lively and enthusiastic essays and were capable of generating work of good quality.

0918 Thucydides and the Greek World

33 Lit Hum, 1 COS, 3 AMH, 6 CAAH. CAAH candidates gained five 2.1s and one 2.2. Few candidates attempted question 10, on trade, but those who did produced high quality answers. Most candidates chose to answer similar questions: question 3, on the consistency of Athens’ treatment of her allies, was the most popular question, followed closely by question 16 on military incompetence. Good answers to question 3 did not limit themselves to an exploration of the evolution from league to empire, but looked at other ways of differentiating Athenian treatment of allies (through the tribute lists or by a comparison of individual examples). Poor answers to question 16 meandered away from the question to consider other reasons for defeat, while good answers explored in detail the effects of military incompetence. The next most popular questions were question 6, on Amorges, and question 4, on neutrality. Generally these were well handled: good answers to question 4 explored the question via case studies. Question 12, on morality, was also popular: good answers explored the existence or otherwise of a dialogue on morality, basing themselves on Thucydides; none explored Old Oligarch in relation to this question.

3176 St Augustine and the Last Days of Rome, 370-430

13 candidates took the paper, 9 from History, one from History and Modern Languages, and three from CAAH. Three students (two History, one CAAH) earned marks of 70+; one student received a mark in the 50s.The other two CAAH students earned 2.1 marks.

Overall, there was good knowledge of the prescribed texts, and much enthusiasm for the subject was on display. The best answers were splendid, and showed a sophisticated and energetic grasp of the full range of texts prescribed for the paper. Several students failed to do full justice to their knowledge and enthusiasm by falling into dangers not uncommon in gobbet papers; poor time management meant that a couple of students whose work was otherwise excellent had to rush the last few passages, with detrimental consequence to their overall mark; and there were cases where students dwelt lovingly on one favourite theme in a passage, neglecting other material of historical interest.

Students also suffered from over-caution, seeming generally reluctant to discuss things of which they had no certain knowledge or to relate the passage to other relevant texts (and sometimes, conversely, inserting irrelevant material related to the author/text but not to the passage). Future candidates should be encouraged to exploit each passage as an opportunity to engage with the full variety of issues which it raises—it is legitimate to raise questions without answering them, and to introduce parallel passages; also to comment on the style and register of the passage, whether typical or otherwise of the author.

3205 Roman History 146 to 46 BC

In CAAH there were 8 candidates, and the questions were answered as follows; 1 (3) ; 2 (4); 3 (5); 4 (3); 5 (4); 6 (3); 7 (1); 8 (5); 9 (0); 10 (1); 11 (2); 12 (0); 13 (0); 14 (0); 15 (0); 16 (1). The examiners were surprised by the extent to which these candidates remained within the confines of political history rather than taking advantage of their extensive training in archaeology and other historical approaches: the questions chosen were bunched in the first half of the paper, where two few candidates demonstrated the required level of familiarity with the primary sources for the political history of the period; no candidate answered Question 13, on survey archaeology; and no answers to Question 3, on Italian land, discussed any archaeological evidence at all.

In terms of the essays, the most popular were 2 (‘To what extent did tribunates in the period 146-99 BC affect the Roman constitution?’), 3 (‘Was land at the heart of disputes between Romans and Italians in this period?’) and 8 (‘Did Rome become more democratic between 146 and 46 BC?’). In the case of 3 and 4, too many candidates attempted to reproduce general essays on the tribunate (or even the Gracchi) or on the causes of the Social War; essays on the tribunate were also found in response to question 8. The better responses engaged with the specific terms of the question, and clarified what was meant by terms such as "constitution" or "democracy." In question 3 surprisingly few candidates seemed aware of the archaeological evidence, and in question 8, despite many references to Polybius, very few candidates seemed aware of the linkage between democracy and tyranny in ancient political thought.

Question 4 invited candidates to reflect on the “last generation” of the Roman Republic, but the notion of a “generation" proved unfamiliar to most of those responding, and was absurdly defined in many cases as extending back to the beginning of the first or even to the later second century. In question 5 (‘Was Clodius a second Catiline?’) some candidates were hampered by a rather confused presentation of the careers of Catiline and Clodius. Too few answers to Question 6, on the usefulness of Plutarch’s presentation of Caesar, could lucidly discuss the nature of the anecdote contained in the question.

The best answers to Question 9, on whether Sallust was a radical historian, demonstrated knowledge not only of his other works but, crucially of the Histories; all answers would have benefitted from more explicit reflection on the definition of “radical” in this context. Candidates answering Question 10 (‘Are Cicero’s political or law court speeches more useful to historians?’) had trouble reaching a firm conclusion, but the best could discuss a wide range of Cicero's speeches. Responses to 11(‘Should we talk about Roman religion or religions in this period?’) and 14 on the role of debt in the period, were largely competent, although responses to 14 tended to focus on debt within the elite, rather than the broader economic life of Rome. There were some very good responses to 12 (‘What do we learn about the history of gender from studying the late Republic?’) and 15 (‘Would we misunderstand this period if we worked from epigraphic sources alone?’), in which candidates demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the sources and the ability to use them creatively. Secondary reading was in some cases pleasingly up to date, especially on agrarian issues; on others, however, including the political events of the late republic, it was often not even up to the later twentieth century.

3637 Egyptian Art and Architecture

Seven candidates were examined for this paper from CAAH. There was a broad range of performance overall, with a pleasing number of first class papers (3) as well as a scattering across 2.1 (2) and 2.2 (2). Most demonstrated a basic grasp of central issues; the lower performing papers struggled both with concepts and data-sets. Marks were fairly consistent across picture questions and essays although, as last year, the picture questions were slightly stronger overall. Candidates selected broadly across the picture questions. For the essays, there was, as ever, a tendency to cling to tutorial topics. Attempts to answer on non-tutorial topics were, however, quite successful.

5H02 Rome, Italy and the Hellenistic East c. 300-100 BC

Seventeen candidates sat this paper. The level of the essays was generally good and all candidates were able to give answers to the chosen questions, but there were no exceptional papers: 15 candidates achieved a 2.1 and two a 2.2. This was either because the essays did not address entirely the set questions or because the picture questions were not fully understood/contextualised. The most popular essays—and those where the best results were achieved—were those on the Great Altar at Pergamon (Q4) and on the Graecia Capta concept (Q10). All other questions were attempted, although some gave way to major misunderstandings (Q5 on post-100BC kings was mostly addressed with reference to the early successors). In general the questions asking for historical reflections on the encounter between the Hellenistic and the Roman world had no takers (Q3 on Romans and Greek sanctuaries; Q7 on Aemilius Paulus; Q10 on the Hellenistic West). The clear preference given to Greek/Hellenistic topics over the Roman ones should be noted and considered in assessing whether the course had been successful in bridging the gap between the Greek and the Roman world. All the picture questions were attempted with different results. The Archelaos relief (1.B) and the Alexandrian gem (1.D) were the most popular. Nearly all candidates recognised the objects, attempted interpretation and/or knew at least some elements of their context (in particular for the Pharos depiction). Question E, on a little-known head from Terracina, led to the best results: candidates successfully attempted stylistic and iconographic analysis and proposed interesting interpretations. This means that the candidates were able to explore the evidence using just their eye and general knowledge of the Hellenistic sculpture. Question 1.C, on a Boscoreale fresco, was widely chosen, but unfortunately misunderstood and only a few takers managed to highlight its Hellenistic connections. In general, it appears from the pictures that the candidates were more familiar with sculpture than with the other media (Q1.A on the palaces of Pergamon had the fewest takers).

5H03 Cities and Settlement under the Empire

Six candidates: three Upper Seconds and three Lower Seconds.

The picture question elicited generally mediocre responses; many answers were let down by incomplete observation or description, and a failure to explore the wider relevance of the phenomena represented in the images. There were a few stand-out answers, though, which both gave a competent description and managed to explore questions of wider significance.

There was a decent spread of essay questions attempted, although 4, 5, and 6 (urban neighbourhoods; religious buildings; and amphitheatrical entertainment) got no takers. Questions 3 and 12 had four takers each, the others no more than two each.

Question 3 (“How important was imperial funding or assistance in the development of Roman cities outside Rome?”) was fairly competently done (three Upper-Second-class answers, and one Lower-Second-class answer), the better answers containing lots of good and detailed examples, though arguments could have been developed further. The weakest answer was vague, and limited to few examples, lacking detail.

Question 12 (“What does the archaeology of Roman villas suggest about the nature of Roman agriculture?”) produced a couple of first-class answers which saw the point about intensive investment in large-scale market-oriented surplus production, and supported their argument with relevant examples and good detail, but the weaker answers risked being general essays on villas.

The small number of candidates prevents discussion of the other individual questions, but the better essays contained sophisticated discussion and deployed well-chosen examples in support of their argument, while the weakest were regurgitated tutorial essays that did not fully address the question asked.

5H07 Greek and Roman Coins

There were four candidates.

5H13 The Archaeology of Minoan Crete

There were four candidates.

5H15 Early Greece and the Mediterranean c. 950-550 BC

Five candidates sat this paper of whom the majority received marks of 69 or higher, reflecting the excellent standard of the scripts and the success with which candidates integrated textual and archaeological evidence.

9H67 A Site or Museum Report

There were 22 reports this year, split evenly between reports on archaeological sites and museum artefacts. The agreed marks included four 1sts, twelve 2:1s, and six 2:2s, with an average mark of 64 (one mark lower than last year). There was a considerable range of subjects and success in tackling them. The best reports fully engaged with the assigned task of using archaeology to write history, presented their information and arguments with clarity and fluidity, and supported their points with an appropriate range of maps, plans, and illustrations. Some offered original insights and independent engagement with the broader contexts of their subjects that were comparable with work done by MSt students. The poorest were simply extended essays that lacked focus and were poorly supported by visual material, and in cases represented little more than a few weeks’ work. One of the most frustrating aspects of this year’s marking were repeated mistakes in simple mechanics. Maps were often illegible; illustrations as a whole had obviously failed to be printed in hard copy and checked prior to submission. References in footnotes were omitted from bibliographies, and bibliographies also lacked page numbers for chapters and articles a surprising number of times. Closer proof-reading would have picked up a few glaring mistakes, such as the repeated and prominent misspelling of crucial reference works, and the correct use of punctuation often appeared to be more of an aspiration than an evident skill. The anonymity of the candidates was also sometimes compromised by including their names in picture credits: in future years, candidates are advised to write ‘author’ instead of their name. More broadly, there also seemed to have been a sporadic failure to have read the guidance in the handbook on what constitutes a site and museum report and what the markers would be hoping to find.

Recommendations: the inclusion of first class site and museum reports in Weblearn, as recommended over the past two years, is in progress, and drawing candidates’ attention to these reports is recommended as one way of avoiding those low marks that were brought about by failure fully to appreciate the nature of the task.

Candidates are exhorted to check and double-check their exam entry forms. One candidate in this year’s cohort enrolled for the wrong paper. A retrospective change of options was able to be granted but had the timetabled order of the papers in question been different a very serious problem would have arisen.

A. J. Clark 13th October 2014

Classical Archaeology and Ancient History FHS 2015: Examiners’ Report

1.1 Overview There were 14 candidates this year (5 F, 9 M), after one withdrawal, and those candidates took a total of 22 different papers, including Site and Museum Reports. The results this year were impressive, with six Firsts awarded (1 F, 5 M), 8 upper seconds (14 F, 6 M) and no lower seconds. The best candidate had an average of 71.71 with 5 marks of 70 and above including one a 77 and 78.

The Chair is deeply grateful to her fellow examiners: Dr Peter Stewart, whose consistent support, knowledge and sense of perspective were ever helpful, and the external examiner, , who took on this role for a year when timetabling constraints made it impossible for the next external to embark immediately on a term. Her very helpful observations on examination papers at the drafting stage and efficiency and swift, thoughtful and sympathetic work throughout the process were much appreciated.

The Chair is also very grateful indeed for the administrative support provided in the Classics Office, by Erica Clarke in preparing exam papers, and by Andrew Dixon in managing the examination process from start to finish. The Chair also thanks Jo Quinn for her efficiency in organising the AH Lit Hum papers; the Chairs of Lit Hum and AMH, John Hyman and Ed Bispham, in particular for discussion of how to deal with the problems of noise from Univ building site; and all the individual assessors for hard work in setting papers and marking them promptly to a tight deadline.

1.2 Statistics

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2015 6 (43%) 8 (57%) 14 2014 2 (9%) 20 (91%) 22 2013 4 (18%) 18 (78%) 1 (4%) 23 2012 3 (19%) 12 (75%) 1 (4%) 16 2011 4 (20%) 14 (70%) 2 (10%) 20 2010 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 2009 2 (11%) 16 (84%) 1 (5%) 19 2008 3 (20%) 12 (80%) 15 2007 3 (20%) 17 (73%) 2 (9%) 22

2015 results broken down by gender: I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total

F 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 5

M 5 (56%) 4 (44%) 9

1.3 Examiners Peter Stewart Anna Clark (Chair) (External)

1.4 Reports on papers sat by more than 2 candidates

A10481W1 Rome, Italy and the Hellenistic East c. 300-100 BC There were 9 candidates, two of whom were awarded high Firsts and the rest 2:1 marks. There was some pleasing work for this paper, and little that was weak; candidates had a lot to say for themselves, often offering lively arguments based on a wide range of evidence. All questions except 5, 9, 10, 11 were answered. This report comments on questions attempted by five or more candidates. Picture questions Most candidates knew the images well enough, with only c and e causing a few problems. 1a (7 candidates): Candidates knew the image and had sensible things to say, but few developed its wider significance. 1b (4 candidates) 1c (5 candidates): Weaker answers had trouble recognising the image here, and offered meandering comment on statues; better answers got into the reception of the piece as a Roman copy as well as recognising and commenting on the original and its context. 1d (7 candidates): There were some good answers here, which drew cultural consequences from the identification of the object, although the detailed descriptions produced some interesting alternatives; better answers could offer parallels. On the other hand weaker answers were descriptive, but drew no conclusions about culture contact. 1e (4 candidates) Essays Candidates had clearly learnt a lot in the course of studying this paper, and the range of examples offered was generally impressive; there were some strong individual answers as well. The examiners generally would have preferred the adjective describing things or people pertaining to or from Pergamon to be rendered only as “Pergamene”, not by neologisms; the term “native” was used as if it was politically uncontroversial. 3 (kingship; 5 candidates): Candidates could have helped themselves by thinking about the terms of the question: kingship could be considered for instance either as an institution or as using existing institutions (or both) – and indeed the better answers did bring some nuance to the question. Many answers thought that kingship became more institutional, but it was refreshing to see a few questioning that paradigm. Philoi appeared in most answers, but few recognised that their presence in an answer to this question could cut both ways. The definition of basilieia in the Suda was virtually ignored, and only one candidate remembered that it also covered good management of pragmata. But overall the question was not badly done. 4 (Ptolemaic Egypt; 6 candidates): There was a tendency to be descriptive not analytical, and to talk about individuals rather than cultures, which held most answers back. Few answers attempted to define what ‘interaction’ was before discussing it. There was a wide range of interesting material cited (although a smaller core of material was common to almost all essays), and occasionally theorised as well (as with cultural bilingualism for example). Perhaps most refreshing were the discussions of papyri and what they suggested about interactions in the private sphere. 7 (Attalids; 5 candidates): There was quite a lot of haziness on the third century rise of the Attalids, the significance of Antiochos Hierax; and their role in the first and second Macedonian wars; and almost no mention of Roman-Attalid relations after 167. Better were discussions of Attalid cultural identity and its links with Rome; and there was some sophisticated material on the nature of internal Attalid rule. 8 (Roman generals); 3 candidates

A10484W1 Thucydides and the Greek World Five candidates in CAAH: three 1sts, two 2:1s.

This was a generally good year: although only one paper was of striking quality (marked at 77), there were six other First Class marks, one (epigraphically impressive) at 73, five at 70; and the majority of the II.1 marks were in the upper half of the scale (16 out of 20); for comparison, all three AMH papers were of First Class standard, and three of the five CAAH papers.

All gobbet passages were attempted, although fewer candidates seem to have read on to passages e and f (7 answers each). Two candidates failed altogether to identify or address the passages chosen, but the overall standard of gobbet answers was consistent with that of the essay answers. The identification of Methone in passage c (Thucydides 2.25.2) caused some confusion, with a number of candidates opting for the geographically implausible northern city when a Messenian location was clearly required from the context.

All questions in Section B were answered, but question 8 in Section A (“How important were Macedonia, the Chalkidike peninsula and Thrace in this period?”) and the extended gobbet question were not attempted. In general, candidates showed a preference for Section A (52) over Section B (38) essay questions. The most frequently attempted question, with twice as many (18) answers as for the next most popular, was, perhaps unsurprisingly, 5 (“Why did the Peloponnesian War break out when it did ?”), but it is encouraging that most of the candidates who chose this challenged rather than simply paraphrased Thucydides’ discussion. Question 2 (“How can we overcome the lack of sources concerning the emergence of the Athenian empire?”), with one exception, was not closely addressed, with most candidates taking it as an opportunity for a narrative response.

Section B questions, for the most part, attracted the best and most sophisticated answers. Two questions, in particular, 11 (“Why did the Athenians put up so many inscriptions?”; five answers) and 18 (“Was the world of Thucydides ‘full of gods’?”; six answers) produced thoughtful and well-informed responses. Knowledge and citation of epigraphical evidence throughout the paper were generally good this year (one candidate noticed the significance of the new fragment of the Argive funerary monument for Tanagra; other comments on the Coinage Decree seemed to reflect discussion in the Trinity Term Ancient History seminar series), although some confusion persists over dating (for example, of the Egesta and Kleinias decrees).

A10485W1 Roman History from 146 to 46 BC Eight candidates in CAAH: five 1sts, two 2:1s, one 2:2. An absolutely outstanding set of scripts this year that demonstrated strong engagement with the textual sources, literary and epigraphic, as well as the material evidence. Answers were often both thoughtful and distinctive, and, as ever, the best scripts combined energetic, well-structured arguments with close analysis of specific primary evidence. Difficulty was nonetheless encountered by those tackling the questions on the predictable and predictably popular subjects of the Gracchi (Question 3) and the tribunate (Question 6), as even the ablest candidates struggled to say something novel, and the former in particular attracted too many attempts to shoehorn a prepared answer on the topic into an inconveniently phrased question, as well as a depressing level of interest in interrogating the nature and authenticity of their personal intentions, an enquiry that would require mind- reading skills not traditionally taught at universities. This is another reminder that the most standard topics are the hardest on which to write a truly outstanding essay. There was surprisingly little take up of the more thematic questions (9-16), despite the opportunities they offered to discuss the material evidence for the period, though when CAAH candidates did tackle these questions they did extremely well. Answers to these questions were, however, of a high standard, no doubt because less thoroughly prepared in advance, and those on the relationship between the prosperity of the upper and lower classes (Question 11) and the impact of Carthage (Question 15) produced particularly thoughtful and well-informed responses.

A10486W1 The Archaeology of Minoan Crete Three candidates.

A10487W1 Greek and Roman Coins Four candidates.

A10488W1 Mediterranean Maritime Archaeology One candidate.

A10489W1 Epigraphy of the Greek and Roman Worlds, c.700 BC – AD 300 One candidate. A10490W1 St Augustine and the Last Days of Rome, 370-430 One candidate.

A10492W1 Intermediate Latin Two candidates.

A10493S1 A Site or Museum Report 12 of the reports submitted were museum reports, though some of these involved close attention to specific sites. The proportion is very striking and should be viewed as a positive development, inasmuch as students were clearly relishing the opportunity for close, first-hand examination of material available to them through museum collections. 10 of the 12 museum reports were based on material in the Ashmolean Museum and the others used the British Museum. It was notable that there were three reports on numismatic topics and two on the relatively neglected topic of engraved gems. 2 of the 3 site reports focused on Roman Britain. The quality of the reports was gratifyingly high throughout, with no final mark below 63 and the highest at 78. There were 5 first-class marks in total – over a third of the cohort. Even reports that were judged to be less strong in particular respects tended to exhibit good professional standards, and it was clear that the students had consistently enjoyed serious, independent research. A more or less consistent weakness was a tendency to make mistakes in formatting and referencing which, while generally minor, did marr the professionalism of the presentation and could easily have been avoided. For example, a recurring flaw was the absence of page numbers for articles or chapters listed in the bibliographies, while the formatting and capitalizing of (English) titles in bibliographies was often inconsistent.

A10921W1 Science Based Methods in Archaeology One candidate in CAAH.

A12433W1 Egyptian Art and Architecture Two takers in CAAH this year.

A12634W1 Athenian Democracy in the Classical Age 3 CAAH candidates: one 1st, one 2:1, one 2:2. Fifteen candidates overall (11 Lit.Hum., 3 CAAH, 1 AMH). Overall, we were pleased by the quality of many of the essays, and there were a good number of first-class scripts overall (2 Lit.Hum., 1 CAAH, 1 AMH). Candidates were most successful when they approached questions with some imagination and avoided the tutorial essay trap. All questions were attempted; we were especially pleased to see a number of candidates (6 Lit.Hum.) choose the optional gobbets question, with a number of first-rate discussions. Of the essays, there were clear favorites: qu. 4, ‘Was slavery an essential feature of Athenian democracy?’ which produced a number of wide-ranging essays that kept an eye on the broader conceptual framework of the question, but too often casual, vague assertions with little or no attention to specific evidence or awareness of scholarly debates compromised the success on this popular question. Qu. 5, ‘Why do so many modern books on Athenian democracy leave out women?’, produced some well-informed and imaginative discussions, though very few did more with the modern historiographical issue; for the most part essays looked at women’s roles, but the best scrutinized the question in its other respects and raised questions about definitions and what constituted women’s contributions. Another favourite, qu. 12, ‘To what extent was personal wealth an advantage in Athenian democracy?’, produced some solid essays; some scripts were nuanced and wide-ranging; very few brought in the theoretical debate about ‘mass and elite’ in the democracy. In the case of all these favourites, the weakest essays tended to produce lists, rather than to produce well conceptualized, thematic arguments. It was puzzling, given the open-ended invitation in qu. 7, ‘What development in Athenian democracy do you regard as most significant and why?’, that almost all candidates elected to write on Ephialtes’ reforms, while acknowledging that little is known about them, and then converted the question into ‘what did Ephialtes do and why was it significant?’. The question in fact invited an implicit assessment of developments in Athenian democracy over its lifetime, and involved justifying one’s choice within the context of other possibilities. Qu.13, ‘how does one reconcile the Athenian principle of freedom of speech with the trial and death of Socrates?’ elicited good discussions of Socrates, but tended to be disappointing in their willingness to discuss ‘freedom of speech’ in itself.

A12635W1 Alexander the Great and his Early Successors 43 candidates sat this paper (20 Lit.Hum., 9 CAAH (eight 2:1s, one 2:2), 7 AMH). All questions were attempted except for Qn. 10/11 on the narrative of Plutarch’s Demetrius and Eumenes vs. that of Diodorus Books 18-20. The other two source-focused questions, on epigraphic evidence for 311-302 (Qn. 11/12 = 2 LitHum) and on the Alexander Sarcophagus or Alexander Mosaic (Qn. 12/13 = 3 CAAH), likewise drew few takers. Knowledge of the set inscriptions was also decidedly mixed in responses to the two questions where it was most needed: Qn. 5/6 (the Exiles Decree) and Qn. 9/10 (the freedom of the Greeks). It was encouraging to see scholarship cited frequently given its absence in previous years (something duly noted in examiners’ reports); yet alongside that was an overall unfamiliarity with the modern historiography of this topic. We noted that the one question which explicitly invited such historiographical reflections, Qn. 13/14 with its quote from James Davidson’s attack on ‘Alexanderland’ scholarship, was only attempted by two candidates. Responses to the most popular questions frequently suffered from defining the terms of the question either incorrectly or with excessive narrowness instead of engaging with the question as a whole. For Qn. 3/4 (“What strategic mistakes did Darius III make in his defence of the Persian empire against Macedonian aggression between 334 and 331 BC?” – 16 takers) ‘strategy’ was taken to just mean military strategy and not also political strategy, and in turn evidence for military strategy was confined to discussion of the three major battles and often left out the rest of the campaign. The term ‘charlatan’ caused enormous trouble for the 14 candidates who attempted Qn. 4/5 (“‘A general must be a charlatan’ (NAPOLEON BONAPARTE). Was Alexander?”), none of whom seemed to know what it actually meant. Matters were made worse by the question not being taken as a whole: no candidate explored the paradox that, if a great general is saying that great generals must be charlatans, then no matter the normal associations of the term it must somehow also be taken positively here. Answers to the most popular question, Qn. 9/10 (“Were any of the Successors really committed to the freedom of the Greeks?” – 27 takers), were hampered by candidates defining the terms ‘freedom’ and/or ‘really committed’ in unrealistic ways. This inevitably produced very one-sided answers arguing that ‘Greek freedom’ was just a question of propaganda. Very few satisfactory explanations were given as to why the Greek cities went along with this propaganda or why the Successors went to such lengths to propagate it. The phrase ‘polis vitality’ was conspicuously absent.

A12637W1 Cicero: Politics and Thought in the Late Republic Single candidate in CAAH (see Greats report)

A12639W1 Religions of the Greek and Roman World 31 BC - AD 312 19 candidates: 12 in Lit.Hum., two in Classics & English, four in CAAH (one 1st, two 2:1s, one 2:2), and one in AMH. Every question was attempted save 8. Question 6, on oracles, and question 2, on elective cults, were extremely, indeed excessively, popular. Candidates were generally quite well informed about the evidence for the former, though they often felt free to expand into various other ways of divining the future or divine will (some more relevant, some less - such as astrology). Quite a few candidates took the decline of oracles as a starting point, rather than focusing their answer more directly on the specific question asked. There was little sign of any reflection on religious ways of knowing or the nature and location of religious authority. Elective cults were generally not well handled. The essays tended to be presentations of a small handful of representative cases, especially Isis and Mithras, with Christianity sometimes adduced as a parallel. Candidates were generally ignorant of the place of choice in conventional religious systems; indeed the paper as a whole is in danger of omitting these, and becoming a special subject on ‘non- standard religiosities of the Roman world’. A partial exception was the world of Fasti IV (q. 1) about which candidates had some knowledge, together with oracles, as already mentioned. But it could be maintained by some that slaves and freedmen had only a very marginal place in civic religion. On the other hand, none of the numerous candidates who mentioned the Mysteries of Eleusis knew that it was a prominent polis-cult. The convergence between the approaches to the questions (2 and 6, but also 1, 7, 10, and 11) was dispiriting. It suggested that students had been taught particular case-studies rather than being encouraged to explore widely and argue from analogy. Ideas that were popular, but too little interrogated, included Bendlin’s ‘religious marketplace’, the significance of city rivalry to the imperial cult, and the role of piety and belief in different cults and religions. More generally, candidates for this paper would do well to show greater awareness of trends and debates in modern scholarship. The Jewishness of early Christianity was not a popular theme for reflection. Josephus’ complex relationship with Jewish identity was seldom perceived. Candidates tended to focus on Against Apion without necessarily showing awareness of broader issues of uniformity / diversity in Judaism. There was a better display of knowledge on the setting and wider context of Minucius Felix, Octavius. Among terms-of-art strangely under-used one should note henotheism. Beard/North/Price and the Faculty lectures on the subject were of service to a few candidates, but not by any means to all. Martyrdom was not intelligently handled. Even the set texts were usually not well known; Peregrinus was scarcely mentioned in this context; there was little awareness of the Pagan Martyrs; no-one mentioned Maccabees; the example of the death of Jesus was almost entirely overlooked; only one candidate mentioned voluntary martyrdom, and no outside observer could believe that these candidates inhabit a world in which voluntary martyrdom in the name of religion is a daily item in news bulletins. Overall, the best answers were achieved by candidates who managed to go beyond obvious case-studies and who were able to reflect on parallels, differences, connections, and conflicts between the various cults and religions studied as part of the paper. Weaker answers needed to focus more directly on the question asked, were lacking in (correct) references to specific examples, and/or failed to develop a clear argument. Candidates for this paper are at their best when they do not only know the prescribed texts well, but are able to think about and with these texts (as well as relevant epigraphic and archaeological material), finding the right balance between detailed knowledge and broader understanding in their essays.

A12640W1 Sexuality and Gender in Greece and Rome 4 candidates in CAAH: one 1st, three 2:1s. A lively set of scripts for this paper (Lit Hum and CAAH) between them answered all the questions, with a pleasing number of scripts showing awareness of theoretical approaches beyond those taken by Foucault and Butler, and a significant further number relating ancient issues to contemporary events and/or Caitlyn Jenner. Question 1 (on women’s writing) had some really standout answers that combined theoretical approaches to gender and writing with a solid grasp of the relevant texts and authors (including, but not limited to, those set). Question 12 (on the differences between ancient and modern conceptions of gender) was also strikingly well done. What these two sets of answers had in common was that they exploited existing knowledge to grapple with new questions, provoking thoughtful, fresh reflections on the topics raised. By contrast, as always, more familiar problems attracted for the most part more pedestrian answers. Responses to Question 10 (on the functions of sexual images) tended to survey, and too rarely revealed detailed familiarity with the individual artefacts discussed. Answers to Question 8 (on adultery) rarely defined ‘adultery’ in either ancient or modern senses, and the essays therefore failed to reckon with the differences between and within relevant ancient and modern concepts. More surprisingly, a significant number of the responses to Question 6 (on early Christianity) treated Paul and Jerome as contemporaries. Smaller but still distracting slips included “Agrippa the wife of Germanicus”, “Hephaestus the matron”, and most intriguingly “Philoctetes' personal enmity towards the Archives”.

A12676W1 The Greeks and the Mediterranean World c.950 -500 BC 9 candidates: 4 CAAH; 4 Lit. Hum; 1 AMH This was a very good year. Four candidates were awarded first class marks (three of them in CAAH), while most of the rest were awarded marks above a mid II.1. Most popular questions were those that explore diachronically the case studies of the paper. Popular questions were: 3 (Phoenicians and Greeks abroad); 4 (innovations of the period); 6 (the study of gender). The best answers employed a number of archaeological cases to support carefully analyses and good arguments, showing knowledge of the wide geographical and chronological material of the paper combined with a number of well-informed theoretical approaches. Weaker answers were those that employed general statements avoiding references to archaeological material or to any of the study cases exploited in the lectures. Some of the candidates attempted plans and/or drawings of sites and objects. Picture Questions: Apart from one candidate, the rest were able to describe and comment well on the picture questions. Most of them included excellent discussions regarding the significance of the objects and plans even if objects and plans were not identified. In particular the picture 1a (Euboean plate) though not identified as most candidate thought it was a skyphos, the significance of Euboean pottery was fully discussed. 1b (the Agora of Megara Hyblaea) was identified by most and the significance of the public space in early settlements abroad was well discussed. 1c (the Nora stele): those who chose to describe this picture identified it and some provided full discussion of the significance of this early Phoenician inscription. 1d (faience figurine): the material was discussed and also the production centres of such objects only one thought that the figurine was made of clay. 1e(the clay plaque from the shrine of Phrontis at Sounion): it was disappointing that the famous dedicatory plaque was not identified but candidates explored the hoplites phenomenon and its importance in the period covered in the paper.

A12677W1 Greek Art and Archaeology c.500-300 BC 4 candidates in CAAH: two 1sts, two 2:1s.

14 candidates sat the examination overall, and the quality of the papers was generally very good. Of the essays, City Planning (2) and Funeral Lekythoi (7) were the most popular essay topics with 8 takers each, followed by (6), Tombs of Asia Minor, and (12), Early Classical, which each attracted 4 examinees. (4), Refinements of the Parthenon, (5), Temples in the West, and (15), Motya and Delphi Charioteers found each only one candidate willing to ponder the question. (3), Plans of Doric Temples, and (14), Chronology of Sculptural Styles, found no takers.

A12678W1 Art under the Roman Empire Five students took the paper and the marks fell into the following bands: two first class; one 2.1; and two 2.2. The number of candidates is too small to allow generalizations. There was a good spread of answers, with a preference among the images for 1A (relief from the Sebasteion) and D (relief from the Arch of Titus). The preferred essay questions broadly matched those chosen by the larger Lit. Hum. cohort, except that the CAAH students favoured qu. 3 (on whether imperial statues were propaganda). Among the strengths exhibited by the best scripts were a willingness to tackle the specific question asked with appropriate evidence and examples, and a critical, historiographical awareness. A12679W1 Roman Archaeology: Cities and Settlement under the Empire Five CAAH candidates: one 1st, three 2:1s, one 2:2.

Five candidates sat this paper in CAAH: one First; three 2:1; one 2:2. The best scripts showed a truly impressive knowledge of detail and the secondary literature, and successfully deployed archaeological examples in wider conceptual debates. Weaker answers, as often, failed properly to answer the question, spent too long on irrelevant material, and muddled examples and facts.

All picture questions were attempted, and generally quite well done. 1A (comparative city plans and sizes) – 1 answer 1B (The forum of Pompeii) proved the most popular, with most candidates managing to identify at least the major temples as temples, and the building of Eumachia; some recognised the macellum, and one or two the basilica. 1C (plan and section of Bordj Djedid cisterns, Carthage) – 1 answer 1D (The Torlonia relief) – most candidates saw this was a port scene, although one, distracted by the elephants, thought it had to do with aquatic displays in amphitheatres. The best answers. 1E (Guadalcuivir settlement map) – answers varied quite widely in quality – the best carefully observed and described the distribution of different settlement types and production sites, and then drew sensible conclusions from them about relative costs of overland and riverine transport; the weaker answers gave a more impressionistic account, often repeating material from the figure’s legend, and then launched into a general discussion of olive oil trade.

Q4 (How do you account for the differences in the sources of funding for public buildings between Roman Britain and the North African provinces?) – Two answers.

Q5 (How can the archaeology of Roman buildings for public entertainment help us understand the performances that went on inside them?) – One answer.

Q6 (What does the architecture of non-elite housing tell us about Roman society?) – Two answers.

Q7 (“Roman aqueducts were a useless and expensive luxury” (Leveau). Do you agree, and why/why not?) – One answer.

Q9 (Does the archaeology of urban production seriously challenge the view that urban manufacture was “essentially petty”?) – Three answers.

Q10 (Is a Roman villa simply a large and architecturally elaborate farm?)– answers deployed a good range of the usual examples; the better answers rose above mere typological classification and deftly enriched a discussion of market-oriented agriculture with analysis of social status and the ostentation of production. A14363W1 Imperial Culture and Society, c. AD 50 – 150: Archaeology and History

There were eight candidates: three 1sts, four 2:1s, and one 2:2.

The paper was generally ably handled in this, its first year of examination. A good range of questions was tackled by the small cohort sitting the paper, with only essay questions 5, 6, 8 and 11 not attempted at all. Most popular were gobbet 1a) and essay no.7, each answered by all but one candidate. Only one candidate had the courage of his/her convictions in placing the mosaic 1 a) in the House of the Faun, but a number of plausible contexts were posited by those who were unsure of original location. 1 b) confused some candidates who thought the bust was of was Hadrian rather than of Antoninus Pius trying to look like Hadrian, but even these were able to provide sensible analysis of the salient features that were being emphasised. 1 c) received mixed treatment, with some splendid answers identifying the midwife as the key figure in a funerary context and adducing relevant comparanda from Isola Sacra and elsewhere, though more than one candidate identified one or two figures, esp. that on the left, as male. 1 d) (Masada) was well handled, with very good evidence in nearly all answers that candidates were really looking at what the photograph showed, as well as deploying contextual knowledge. 1 e) (Timgad) was also effectively answered, with good use of the information from the plan as well as wider knowledge being well used. Question 7 (on which from the Panegyric or Trajanic monuments in Rome was more helpful for understanding how Trajan wished to be seen) produced mainly strong answers, which rightly questioned the degree of Trajan’s input not only into Pliny’s Panegyric but also (many of) the monuments in Rome and showed some detailed knowledge of both text and monument. The other essay questions that were answered by more than two candidates were q.2 (by 5 of 8, on how far Nero was responsible for the problems of his reign) and 12 (by 3 of 8, on Hadrian’s attitude to empire), with some sophisticated answers. Overall this was a good run. The best scripts showed real evidence of careful thought, together with a pleasing grip on a range of evidence and how to use it. Weaker scripts were let down by lower level analysis and chronological insecurities.

Overall comments:

It is too early to say whether the implementation of placing previous site and museum reports on Weblearn this year has had any direct connection to the stronger performance in site and museum reports by this cohort, but the strong performance on this exercise is worth noting.

The new setting timetable appears to be effective, and the only serious problems this year were caused by the Univ building site. These were dealt with in conjunction with Lit Hum and AMH.

A. J. Clark 13th October 2015

EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORT FORM 2016

Title of Examination(s): Classical Archaeology & Ancient History: FHS External Title: Dr Examiner Name: Details Position: Senior Lecturer in Ancient History Home Institution:

Please complete both Parts A and B.

Part A Please (✓) as applicable* Yes No N/A / Other A1. Did you receive sufficient information and evidence in a timely  manner to be able to carry out the role of External Examiner effectively?

A2. Are the academic standards and the achievements of  students comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions of which you have experience?

A3. Do the threshold standards for the programme appropriately  reflect the frameworks for higher education qualifications and any applicable subject benchmark statement? [Please refer to paragraph 3(b) of the Guidelines for External Examiner Reports].

A4. Does the assessment process measure student achievement  rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s)?

A5. Is the assessment process conducted in line with the  University's policies and regulations?

A6. Did you receive a written response to your previous report? 

A7. Are you satisfied that comments in your previous report have  been properly considered, and where applicable, acted upon?

* If you answer “No” to any question, please provide further comments in Part B. Further comments may also be given in Part B, if desired, if you answer “Yes” or “N/A / Other”.

Part B

B1. Academic standards a. How do academic standards achieved by the students compare with those achieved by students at other higher education institutions of which you have experience?

The standards achieved by students on this programme are easily comparable with, and in some cases superior to, those I have seen on similar programmes in UK universities. Students have the opportunity to demonstrate competence in a wide range of skills, from linguistic to scientific, and to develop their skills in independent research (esp. in the Museum/Site Reports: the best of these were of a quality I would expect of postgraduate work). The breadth of skills and of knowledge visible in student work is one of the most impressive things about this programme. b. Please comment on student performance and achievement across the relevant programmes or parts of programmes (those examining in joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award).

Student performance was thoroughly impressive. Two things are notable: first, the almost complete absence of a ‘tail’ (only one 2.2 was awarded this year); second, the very high number of Firsts awarded (10, from 21 candidates). To some extent, this is what one would hope for, given the quality of students entering the programme; but it is also indicative of the quality of teaching (and student effort) over the course of the degree. And while there were, perhaps, not many really outstanding performances this year, all of those students who received First class degrees typically did so on the basis of a consistently strong performance across all their papers, with several marks in the First class (that is: it is not the case that students are relying on performance in one or two papers or exercises to boost them up to a First).

B2. Rigour and conduct of the assessment process

Please comment on the rigour and conduct of the assessment process, including whether it ensures equity of treatment for students, and whether it has been conducted fairly and within the University’s regulations and guidance.

All of the marking which I saw was fair and consistent – even when I disagreed with an internal mark, I could understand the rationale by which it had been awarded. The overall examining process also seemed to be conducted with great care, and with particular attention to ensuring that students with medical or other issues were not unfairly disadvantaged.

One small frustration (which I note was also raised by last year’s External Examiner) is that internal markers are not at all systematic in recording the process by which they have reached agreed marks. (This was done, very helpfully, for the Site Reports, but not usually done for exams.) This would be particularly useful where first and second markers have suggested marks in different classes: since the class of a paper can potentially have a significant impact on a candidate’s degree result, knowing the reason(s) why internals settled on a mark on a particular side of the class boundary would provide very helpful guidance when it comes to assessing overall borderline cases.

B3. Issues

Are there any issues which you feel should be brought to the attention of supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University?

The internal Examiners expressed some concern that students’ performance in this programme might be distorted by their marks in language papers (which are marked to a different set of criteria from essay papers, and in which it is more easily possible to score either very high [80+] or exceptionally low marks). I looked carefully at the overall performance of this cohort with that question in mind, and am satisfied that this was not the case this year: marks for language papers were not significantly out of line with those for other, essay-based, exercises, and no candidate received a particular class of degree solely on the grounds of very strong (or weak) performance in a language paper. Nevertheless, I do see that there is potential for this to be an issue – as it is in many universities where students are (quite rightly!) allowed and encouraged to continue to learn languages in their final two years – and wonder if the Faculty might consider addressing it. (Solutions which I have seen in other universities include: scaling or capping language marks; adjusting the format of the examination, so that it includes more elements on which it is very hard to score very high or low marks [essay or gobbet questions, for example]; or amending classification regulations so that marks on language papers are treated differently from those on essay-based papers).

B4. Good practice and enhancement opportunities

Please comment/provide recommendations on any good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment, and any opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students that should be noted and disseminated more widely as appropriate.

As noted above, the Site Report/Museum Project generated some outstanding work. A particularly valuable feature of this exercise is the way in which it allows students to pursue independent, even original, research within a well-defined and controlled framework; as such, it offers an excellent stepping-stone between undergraduate and postgraduate work (to a greater extent than a more conventional UG dissertation project, perhaps). The marking model used for this exercise (multiple first markers, with subject expertise; a single second marker, to ensure consistency across the cohort) also seems to me very good practice.

B5. Any other comments

Please provide any other comments you may have about any aspect of the examination process. Please also use this space to address any issues specifically required by any applicable professional body. If your term of office is now concluded, please provide an overview here.

I would add only that the examining process was run with admirable clarity and efficiency; my thanks to Dr Dignas and Dr Stewart for all of their efforts, and to the administrative staff at the Classics office for their support.

Signature:

Date:

Please email your completed form (preferably as a word document attachment) to: [email protected] and copied to the applicable divisional contact.

Alternatively, please return a copy by post to: The Vice-Chancellor c/o Catherine Whalley, Head of Education Planning & Quality Review, Education Policy Support, University Offices, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD.

Preliminary Examination in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History 2015–16: Chair’s Report

PART I A1: Statistics

There were 23 candidates (12 female, 11 male).

Class Number Percentage (%) 2015‐16 2014/15 2013/14 2015‐16 2014/15 2013/14 Distinction 8 (8) (6) 35% (38%) (26%) Pass 15 (13) (17) 65% (62%) (74%) Fail 0 (0) (0) 0.0% (0.0%) (0.0%)

(ii) female candidates

Class Number Percentage (%) 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 Distinction 2 (3) (3) (17%) (23%) (18%) Pass 10 (10) (14) (83%) (77%) (82%) Fail 0 (0) (0) 0.0% (0.0%) (0.0%)

(iii) male candidates

Class Number Percentage (%) 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 Distinction 6 (5) (3) 55% (63%) (50%) Pass 5 (3) (3) 45% (37%) (50%) Fail 0 (0) (0) 0.0% (0.0%) (0.0%)

A2. VIVAS: Not used in this examination.

A3. MARKING OF SCRIPTS:

The Examiners were:

Dr Maria Stamatopoulou (Chair) Dr Hannah Mitchell (External)

1 The Examiners are most grateful to colleagues for setting and marking papers, often alongside considerable other examination burdens, for keeping in most cases to the agreed timetable, and for their contributions to this Report.

A4: ADMINISTRATION:

The Examiners are most grateful to Erica Clarke and Andrew Dixon for all their help in preparing the papers and compiling the marks and for their patience, guidance and support during and after the examination.

B. EXAMINING PROCEDURES:

Paper‐setters were again asked to check the final papers, to avoid repeat of a problem that arose in 2013 where an error crept into one question at an early stage of editing and was not spotted by the examiners. This worked well and should be continued as standard practice henceforth.

C. EXAMINATION CONVENTIONS

In accordance with the change from Moderations to Prelims in 2013, results are now classified as Pass/Fail results, with discretion to recognise a ‘Distinction’ in cases where candidates have performed exceptionally well.

The overall level of performance was very high. Although classes are no longer awarded, it was pleasing there was no result lower than what would have been awarded 2.1 in the past. All of the examiners were aware of the risk of results bunching in the 2.1/low 1st range, but considered the marks genuinely to reflect consistently sound performance rather than caution on the part of the markers. There were instances of very high marks on individual papers and questions, and there was a pleasing number of well‐deserved distinctions.

PART II

A. GENERAL COMMENTS

This year the examination ran very smoothly, mostly thanks to the great help provided by Erica Clarke and Andrew Dixon whom we thank warmly. The Examination Schools were helpful in arranging for setters to check the papers beforehand. Both the preparation of the papers and the running of the examination were without any problems. The use of the electronic comment sheets was much applauded by the examiners as it allowed them to check criteria for marking easily. We recommend that their use is continued. There were a few problems with uploading marks but they were resolved very quickly thanks to the help of the administrative staff in the Classics Centre.

2 C. MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, SpLD, ILLNESS, WITHDRAWAL:

There were no additional medical certificates to the ones that were issued before the beginning of the examinations. The examiners took into account the special circumstances of candidates when marking exams and when assessing borderline cases.

D. NUMBERS TAKING EACH PAPER

A10067W1 Aristocracy and Democracy in the Greek World, 550 to 450 BC 23 A10068W1 Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50 23 A10069W1 Homeric Archaeology and Early Greece, 1550 to 700 BC 5 A10070W1 Thucydides and the West 2 A10071W1 Aristophanes Political Comedy 13 A10072W1 Cicero and Catiline 1 A10073W1 Tacitus and Tiberius 3 A10074W1 Beginning Ancient Greek 3 A10075W1 Beginning Latin 5 A10078W1 Greek Vases 4 A10079W1 Greek Sculpture c. 600 to 300 BC 8 A10080W1 Roman Architecture 1 A14350W1 Advanced Latin 1

SUBJECT REPORTS

A10067W1 / I. Aristocracy & Democracy in the Greek World, 550 to 450 B.C.

General: 23 candidates sat this paper; a good number of distinctions were awarded. The candidates had prepared well and rose to the challenge of integrating textual and archaeological evidence.

Picture / Gobbet Question The overall quality of answers was satisfactory, indicating that candidates were well prepared for this question. Stronger answers commented on date, shape or context, described or picked out specific details or words, and worked from observations towards points of wider significance, occasionally drawing all the strands together in a concluding paragraph (though this is not essential). This year the handling of gobbets was far more satisfactory than in the previous year, as students made use of specific points from the texts to discuss the significance of the gobbets.

Picture Questions: Students answered the images effectively, with clear structure and logical thinking. However, this year again candidates when they recognized monuments/sites they often failed to place them in the proper context. Very few candidates chose iii – the metopes from Selinus, which is symptomatic of the limited knowledge students have of western Greeks

3 (evident also in the essays). The Nike of Kallimachos (iv) was attempted by most of the candidates, some recognized it but treated it mostly in stylistic terms; the few students who were able to place it in its proper historical and spatial context (esp. when not identifying it) displayed an excellent understanding of votive practice and war memorials.

Gobbets: All were attempted. Compared to last year, candidates were far more focused and avoided digression to narratives including general information that was not relevant to the specific text.

Essays This year’s candidates attempted a fewer number of questions. The most popular were Qu. 2 (tyrants and building projects), 3 (symposion), 4 (institution of democracy & archaeology), 5 (development of sanctuaries), 14 (Sparta). Questions 6 (Trade) & 9 (bias towards the elite) were attempted only by one person, while questions 11 (western Greeks) and 12 (games) by two candidates. Questions 8, 10, 13 had no takers.

Questions that required candidates to show knowledge of places and communities beyond those covered in the classes (Athens, Sparta, Samos) and/or discuss methodological issues across the themes covered in the paper were not always popular. However, when attempted, these questions were handled very well and therefore students were marked highly. The best answers showed very impressive detailed knowledge and nuanced reasoning. Poorer ones did not cover the question fully, had a tendency to stray off topic, and/or drew simplistic distinctions.

Essays: 2 (tyrants and major works): although covered in classes (two classes) answers were often vague. The question on Sparta (14) with a few exceptions was again not very well handled, as students were often vague, uncertain about the archaeological evidence from Sparta and Laconia (and its significance), while the treatment of the literary sources about the constitution of Sparta etc. was at times too summary. As with the picture question on Western Greece, Q 12 was not attempted by many candidates; in a few essays it became apparent that western Greeks are seen by students as ‘foreign elites’. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed in including evidence (in lectures perhaps or presentations) from Greek sites on the West, especially as it would be useful both in the classes on tyranny, sanctuaries, trade.

A10068W1. Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50

The paper produced many solid performances this year, with two Distinctions, and only two overall marks below 60 among the 23 takers. The strongest scripts combined a grasp of difficult problems with an ability accurately to deploy specific examples. Inaccuracy over detail let down a number of answers.

A good spread of questions was chosen, although some as ever proved more popular than others. In picture gobbets, good answers worked from what was visible, bringing in contextual knowledge in order to address significance. 1 ii) from the tomb of Eurysaces was most popular,

4 with sixteen takers. All those answering were able to identify the monument, though dates assigned to it varied surprisingly, one placed it in Pompeii, too many assumed freedman status for Eurysaces, and deductions made from clothing varied in accuracy. Four candidates answered on i) (mosaic from house of Umbricius Scaurus), with good knowledge and sensible deductions evident; eight tackled iii) (uicomagistri altar from the uicus Sandalarius).There was some good evidence of close scrutiny and logical deductions on display in answers to this question, which was unfamiliar to most of those answering, although several candidates were misled e.g. by ‘AUGUSTO XIII’ on the altar (iii) into identifying Augustus as the central figure. Only three candidates tackled iv) (a plan of Carthage).

Among the textual gobbets, strong answers provided a clear context and showed sensitivity to the nature of the text. 1 v) (Suetonius on Julius Caesar’s public utterances) attracted thirteen answers, most of which made a comparison with Augustus, but many of which would have benefited from consideration of Suetonius’ sources. 1 vi) (the inscription from tomb of Vestorius Priscus in Pompeii) attracted ten answers. Many were hesitant to assign a location, despite the label including a reference to Cooley & Cooley, but thought very sensibly about the implications of actions by both decurions and a family member. 1 vii) (the anecdote in Plutarch’s Lucullus about Cicero and Pompey dining with Lucullus) attracted six answers of varying quality: the strongest knew the episode and were able to introduce comparative evidence and effectively to highlight themes on which the story sheds light; weaker answers were misled by the word ‘apartments’ in the translation or thought Lucullus a freedman. 1 viii) (Columella on absentee landowners) attracted nine answers, with a range of good observations, though relatively little attention was paid to the mention of ‘overseer’ in the last line.

Only two essay questions attracted no answers (q.4 on non‐literary evidence for senate‐ princeps relations and q.11 on the N‐W provinces). Qs. 7 (‘How important is the imperial family for understanding urban changes outside Rome in this period?’ and 13 (“Production of wine was largely an elite occupation” (Patterson). Why does wine have such a high profile in the study of agriculture in our period?’ attracted only one answer each. Most popular was q. 12 (‘Can we really know anything about the thoughts and opinions of slaves and ex‐slaves in this period?’), with fifteen answers and some excellent work on display, breaking down monolithic categories, exploring a good range of examples, and showing sensitivity to the evidential difficulties involved. Strong answers to question 2 (‘To what extent did the city of Rome in AD 14 resemble the city of Rome in 44 BC?’), with 11 takers, avoided simply listing examples of Augustan monuments and thought about the implications of ‘extent’. Those wishing to write about political change in the years in question needed to keep their focus on the city to answer the question asked, as some did successfully. Question 5 (‘Was unity the aim or outcome of emperor worship?’), also with 11 takers, produced mixed answers, of which the strongest thought hard about what ‘unity’ meant. More problematic were those which failed to address adequately issues of agency, or which included examples hard to justify even under the wide umbrella term ‘emperor worship’. Q. 9 (‘How do the luxury villas on the Bay of Naples contribute to understanding elite values in this period?’), with six takers, revealed occasional confusion about the distinction between townhouses and villas, or over which evidence came from which villa. Q. 3 (‘Did Augustus cause any problems for his successors?’) attracted five

5 answers, and revealed some uncertainty as to what evidence or approach was best adopted. Q.6 (‘What aspect of this period would we most seriously misunderstand without epigraphic evidence?’) had four takers, and included some high quality, detailed and thoughtful work. Q. 8 (‘Was Augustus the only model for the form and uses of imperial portraits from Tiberius to Claudius?’) had four answers, with more knowledge about ‘uses’ on display than about ‘form’. Q.10 (‘Are attitudes to trade in extant written texts diametrically opposed to what material evidence suggests was happening?’) attracted eight answers, most of which were able to think with some nuance about how to address the written texts as well as material examples; q.14 (‘How closely connected were colonization and urban change outside Italy?’) had only three answers. Relevant case studies here needed to be linked to a broader discussion of the question of connection in order to answer the question most effectively.

ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

A10069W1 Homeric archaeology and early Greece, 1550‐700 BC

5 candidates sat the examination. An excellent year, with four candidates receiving a first class mark and one a high II.1. Picture questions were answered very well, with specific examples and very accurate descriptions. The best essays used an excellent range of material evidence presented with clear chronological sensitivity on social developments and the wider regional context.

A10078W1. Greek vases

4 candidates.

A10079W1. Greek sculpture

8 candidates sat this paper. There were two distinctions, and many papers achieving marks in the very high 60s. There was no candidate who was marked lower than 65, which is a very pleasing result.

Picture questions were on the whole well‐handled and all questions were attempted.

A wide range of questions were attempted but by far the most popular were Questions 5 (Olympia pediments) and 12 (Praxiteles). Questions 4 (East Greek sculpture), 8 (Nike of Paionios), 11 (late classical dedications at Delphi) and 13 (chronology of sculpture) were not chosen by any candidate. Overall the level was high, displaying good structure, clear narratives with effective presentation of the material evidence. Some of the answers were a bit superficial, or narrowly argued. Therefore distinction was awarded to the answers/papers where both breadth of knowledge (use of wide range of evidence) and attention to detail in the argumentation was evident.

6 Roman Architecture

1 candidate.

HISTORY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

A10070W1. Thucydides and the West

2 candidates.

A10071W1. Aristophanes and political comedy

Among the 13 students that sat this paper only two scored a first class result. One of the two was stellar. 9 students earned a mark in the 2.1 range, with only one mark at the upper end. 2 candidates gained a 2.2 result. This outcome reflects the somewhat disappointing answers in both commentaries and essays. On the whole, individual students performed quite consistent across these different exercises. Gobbet Ai was chosen less frequently than the other three gobbets. Weak answers suffered from lack of specific reference and misunderstandings of individual scenes. The context of passages was in general well explained. The most popular essay questions were questions 2 (the demos in Aristophanes and the Old Oligarch), 3 (inadequacy of the jury system), 5 (women as ‘powerless’?) and 8. (‘choice of characters’) Apart from question 6 all questions were chosen by at least 2 candidates. Good answers revealed nuances and were able to point to specific examples that addressed a range of relevant aspects pertaining to the question. The popular themes required very sharp focus on the specific questions, which many candidates did not achieve, i.e. it did not suffice to juxtapose comments on the demos in Aristophanes’ plays and in the Old Oligarch, to describe women’s roles or the jurors in Wasps, to look at Cleon as the stereotypical politician.

A10072W1 Cicero and Catiline

1 candidate.

A10073W1. Tacitus and Tiberius

3 candidates.

LANGUAGES

Beginning Greek: 3 CAAH, 1 AMH Beginning Latin: 5 CAAH, 1 AMH Advanced Latin: 1 CAAH

The performance was overall very good indeed – candidates who prepared the set materials well had no trouble translating well and also managed the unseen text very well indeed. The

7 grammar questions are occasionally less securely answered – which is not surprising after only one year of Latin or Greek at university level; but candidates may want to practice this side of the exam more: it will be good to remember that a question asking for a commentary / an explanation is always best answered by starting with parsing, and only after parsing should a commentary be attempted.

It is very good to see so many AMH and CAAH students opting for a language exam.

Dr Maria Stamatopoulou Chair of Examiners, CAAH Prelims 2016 24 October, 2016

8

The Vice‐Chancellor c/o Sajda Arabi, Academic Policy Support University Offices University of Oxford Wellington Square OX1 22JD - 25.vii.14

External Examiner’s report Preliminary Examinations in Classical Archaeology and Anccient History

Dear Vice‐Chancellor,

I am writing to report my observations as this year’s External Examiner for the Preliminary Examination in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History. I would like to thank Dr Lisa Bendall and her examination board for making my task straightforward and enjoyable. Vetting the draft examination papers was straightforward and assisted by prompt and efficient dispatch of materials and use of a sophisticated online repository. During the period of our meetings in Oxford, Dr Bendall made every effort to get material to me as soon as she was able to receive it herself, and to ensure I had what I needed. There is no doubt that the course is thoroughly and fairly assessed, with a commendable effort to set and mark papers that test a wide variety of knowledge and skills. Prelims clearly form a valuablle precursor to Schools, with similar tasks and subject matter tested in a similar way and marked according to the same criteria. The process is conducted with exemplaryy rigour and diligence. I record my further observations below under the headings suggesteed for the Final Honour School of the same degree pprogramme:

(i) Whether the academic standards set for its awards, or paart thereof, are appropriate

The academic standards are indeed appropriate and are fairly examined.

Page 2

(ii) The extent to which its assessment processes are rigorous, ensure equity of treatment for students and have been fairly conducted within institutional regulations and guidance

I am entirely confident that the Preliminary Examination for this degree is indeed rigorous, equitable, and fairly conducted in line with institutional regulations and guidance. There were no unusual circumstances to discuss. I have four observations/recommendations to make:

1) Arithmetic – I found a series of minor faults in the arithmetic of one particular Prelims marker, largely in the addition and averaging of individual subcomponent marks into an overall component mark within the paper. Of the nine mark sheets for that paper that I saw, five contained rounding errors that changed the overall script mark in three cases. I recommended to the Chairman, and to the Chairman of Schools, that they check this marker’s arithmetic in other papers and also spot check the whole cohort for arithmetical accuracy (as I continued to do). This was swiftly done, and no substantive changes resulted. As Prelims papers are single marked, there is room for error of this sort to go unchecked. I am therefore glad to hear that there is a move towards computerised marksheets that calculate marks automatically; their adoption should eliminate the risk of error.

2) Related to this, and a truly minor point: the classification sheets erroneously counted ‘marks over 70’ (etc) rather than ‘marks of 70 and above’. I reported this and it was immediately rectified.

3) As for Schools, markers were not entirely consistent in their use of the appropriate mark sheets, with marks and comments recorded on a variety of sheets including blank A4. This made the process of reviewing scripts, already conducted under considerable pressure of time between Schools meetings, harder than it should have been. Dr Bendall’s Notes for Assessors document already very clearly instructs markers that they should use its enclosed mark sheets and write legibly, so there is little more that the Chairman can do except continue to remind colleagues about this. Because many papers are single‐marked there is less need than in Schools for an consistent method of agreeing divergent marks, but when this does happen it is important that markers record the basis of their agreement.

4) One candidate’s scripts showed serious defects including the submission of incomplete work. Two scripts – for Greek and Roman cores – degenerated into notes or essay plans. The Examination board looked at these and awarded marks in accordance with the Faculty guidance on short weight answers. Marks of 41 (Roman Page 3 core) and 34 (Greek core) were recorded, with 54 for Greek sculpture. The board also looked at the candidate’s Latin paper, whose marks were low. As the paper was substantially complete the original marks were allowed to stand. The process of looking at these papers was necessary in part because marking at the low end of the scale, and in respect of short weight answers, was inconsistent between markers. I appreciate the Chairman’s assurance that this sort of case is very rare. I also think that the Faculty’s existing marking guidelines for the lower end of the spectrum are not as full as they should be; rare as this sort of case is, it did arise this year and resulted in inconsistent marking. While markers can be very nuanced in their awarding of, say, 68 rather than 65, they are much less consistent in choosing between, say, 20 and 40, although a variation of this size will naturally have a substantial impact on a candidate’s overall mark. I therefore suggest that marking descriptors in the lower end of the range – 0‐40 – be reviewed for consistency with other School guidance, to include guidelines for marking short‐weight or bullet‐pointed answers, and a paragraph inserted explaining what merits a mark in each decile range from 0 to 40.

(iii) The standards of student performance in the programmes or parts of programmes which they have been appointed to examine (those examining in the joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award);

The standard of student performance, with the exception of the case discussed above, was high and suggests that students are well taught and very able. In my External Examiner’s comments for CAAH Schools I had cause to comment on the clustering of marks in the narrow II:I range. I was pleased to find that this was less evident in this year’s Prelims cohort, where the total number of distinctions is much higher (6 out of 23 vs 2 firsts out of 22). The same is true at the bottom end, with more low 2.1 and 2.2 marks (obscured by Prelims’ fail/pass/distinction categories). I suspect that while this may well be a year of more genuinely mixed ability, it is also the case that the single‐marked four‐paper structure causes less averaging out into the middle. The language exam in particular causes a substantially wider variation of marks than other papers at Prelims and Schools. However, I think it is worth reminding markers, as I did for Schools, and as the Chairman’s Notes for Assessors does already emphasise, to use the full range of available marks and to do so with regard to the published mark descriptors. In the case of some first class work, and of the failing scripts discussed above, it did seem that some markers regarded the 60‐69 range as the default with excursions only into the low 70s and high 50s. Bolder use of the full range will give more variation in overall marks and may help candidates identify strengths and weaknesses more clearly as they prepare for finals. Page 4

(iv) Where appropriate, the comparability of the standards and student achievements with those in some other higher education institutions;

These are clearly highly able students, well taught and well prepared for their exams.

(v) Issues which should be brought to the attention of the supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University

I would suggest that my comments above about using the full mark range, and agreeing guidelines for marking work in the failing range of the spectrum, be considered by the appropriate Faculty bodies.

It remains for me to thank Dr Bendall and her colleagues for their rigour and good judgement, and for making my task as easy and enjoyable as possible. I have no doubt that CAAH Prelims are fairly and robustly assessed.

1

BOARD OF THE FACULTY OF CLASSICS

REPORT OF THE

EXAMINERS

FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS IN

CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Trinity Term 2015

2

A: STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Numbers of candidates in each class, 2015

Distinction Pass Fail Total 8 13 0 21 % 38 % 62 %

2. CAAH Moderations Results: 2002‐2012

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2002 1 13 0 14 7% 93% 2003 4 17 0 21 19% 81% 2004 1 13 1 15 7% 87% 7% 2005 4 15 3 22 18% 68% 14% 2006 3 14 2 19 16% 74% 11% 2007 2 12 4 18 11% 67% 22% 2008 1 17 4 22 5% 77% 18 2009 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2010 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2011 3 18 2 23 13% 78% 9% 2012 4 16 0 20 20% 80% 2013 4 11 0 15 27% 73%

CAAH Prelims Results: 2013‐2014

Distinction Pass Fail Total 2014 6 17 23 26% 74%

3

3. Classes by gender

Female Distinction Pass Fail Total 3 10 0 13 % 23 % 77 % Variance from overall percentage ‐15% +15%

Male Distinction Pass Fail Total 5 3 0 8 % 63% 37% Variance from overall percentage +25% ‐25%

4. Examiners and Assessors

The Examiners were:

Dr Maria Stamatopoulou (Chair) Dr Jonathan Prag (External)

The Examiners are most grateful to the assessors for setting and marking papers, often alongside considerable other examination burdens, for keeping in most cases to the agreed timetable, and for their contributions to this Report.

5. Overall level of performance

The overall level of performance slightly better than 2014 with two more distinctions in a smaller cohort. Given the small size of the programme, the proportions are in line with past performance across the years. Also, although classes are no longer awarded, it was pleasing there was no result lower than what would have been awarded 2.1 in the past. All of the examiners were aware of the risk of results bunching in the 2.1/low 1st range, but considered the marks genuinely to reflect consistently sound performance rather than caution on the part of the markers. There were instances of very high marks on individual papers and questions, and there was a pleasing number of well‐deserved distinctions. For more detailed discussion please see individual reports under (B) Examiners’ Reports.

Gender: It is striking that 63% of men and only 37% of women achieved distinctions, but the figures come into focus when the small numbers of the cohort are observed. In 2015, only 8 men took the exam, and 13 women; in such small cohorts, even a single figure will have a marked effect. While the situation should continue to be monitored, there seems no general reason for concern with the present outcome.

4

6. Administration

In accordance with the change from Moderations to Prelims in 2013, results are now classified as Pass/Fail results, with discretion to recognise a ‘Distinction’ in cases where candidates have performed exceptionally well.

Paper‐setters were asked this year to check the final papers, to avoid repeat of a problem that arose in 2013 where an error crept into one question at an early stage of editing and was not spotted by the examiners. This worked well and should be continued as standard practice henceforth.

The Examiners are most grateful to Erica Clarke and Andrew Dixon for help in preparing the papers and compiling the marks and for all their help during and after the examination.

B. EXAMINERS’ REPORTS

CORE PAPERS

A10067W1 / I. Aristocracy & Democracy in the Greek World, 550 to 450 B.C.

General: 21 candidates sat this paper; 6 distinctions, 15 pass. This was a good run of scripts in which candidates had prepared well and rose to the challenge of integrating textual and archaeological evidence.

Candidates showed lack of precision when citing dates, quoting names, or spelling Greek words. Future candidates must check that they know how to spell the following: Apollo, Eretria, Gerousia, Himera, Koes, kouros / ‐oi, Mediterranean, Peloponnese, trittys / trittyes. An alarming number of scripts indicated basic lack of understanding and inconsistency in the use of capitalisation.

Picture / Gobbet Question The overall quality of answers was satisfactory, indicating that candidates were well prepared for this question. Stronger answers commented on date, shape or context, described or picked out specific details or words, and worked from observations towards points of wider significance, occasionally drawing all the strands together in a concluding paragraph (though this is not essential). The handling of images was better than that of gobbets, where weaker answers made vague statements about text, or repeated background knowledge without tying this obviously to the specific piece or passage. As this question is still relatively new to CAAH Prelims, we offer extended comments on specific questions:

1.ii. Most candidates did not know the term "Roll‐out drawing".

1.v. (Athenaios Deip. 695 A‐B = PMG 893‐6): The extent of lack of basic knowledge about Athenaios was alarming: he was not a poet or the author of the verses quoted! 5

Candidates also tended to comment too generally about the Tyrannicides rather than the text actually in front of them.

1.vi. (Hdt proem): Candidates did not know the term "proem" and in general gave poor answers because they wrote in general about Herodotus rather than addressing specifically the contents of the passage. This was disappointing as the extract had been covered in some detail in a class.

1.viii. (Deinomenid dedications at Delphi). Good answers commented on the identity of Gelon and Hieron, the occasions for the dedications, their form, the location, Bion (ML 28) and the Etruscans (ML 29).

Essays This year’s candidates attempted a wide range of questions from across the paper, including some of those that were harder (Qu 13 on natural resources and their role in shaping the history of the Greek world in this period). The most popular were Qu. 3, 6 and 4 (Kleisthenic reforms); the least attractive were qu. 7, 8, 13, 14, which required candidates to show knowledge of places and communities beyond those covered in the classes (Athens, Sparta, Samos) and/or discuss methodological issues across the themes covered in the paper. The best answers showed very impressive detailed knowledge and nuanced reasoning. Poorer ones did not cover the question fully, had a tendency to stray off topic, and/or drew simplistic distinctions.

Qu. 3. (Why focus on tyrants?): 16 answers. This was the most popular question. The best answers discussed a range of tyrants from different times, places, and circumstances, and commented on the problematic nature of the evidence (uncertainties about who paid for the construction of monumental buildings, historiographical issues). Weaker answers tended to digress on one tyrant’s alleged public works, lacked precision and were superficial in their treatment of the question.

Qu. 6. (What difference does archaeology make to our understanding of Sparta during the period 550‐450 BC?): 14 answers. Very popular but overall the knowledge of the archaeological evidence was limited or vague. Answers were on the whole stronger on the problems of the literary evidence, stereotypes, etc., and on the treatment of the votives from the Orthia Sanctuary, but with few exceptions were not aware of the architectural/archaeological remains or were discussing the archaeological evidence in an uncritical way.

A10068W1. Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50

21 candidates: 4 distinctions, 17 pass marks. Only question 7 (freedmen) went unanswered.

Picture questions (1.A.i‐iv): Overall, not all candidates remembered the instruction to describe carefully what you can see; and weaker answers failed to make use of specific parallels to help explain and understand what could be seen. A.i (theatre at Ephesus) received a single answer; A.ii (Tomb of Poplicius at Ostia), 6 answers: a mixed set of 6 responses, with stronger answers not just providing a good description of the image of the tomb (and in several cases recognising it) but also setting it in context and offering parallels; A.iii (wall‐painting from House of Livia) 13 answers, much the most popular, and often well done; stronger answers attempted stylistic assessment as well as offering a good description and attempting to consider comparanda; weaker answers in particular failed to offer parallels and were limited in description; A.iv (Forum Iulii, Rome) 7 answers: a mixed bag, which illustrated well that a good answer is possible without correct identification; stronger answers offered full descriptions of what the plan showed, and the best answers went on from there to consider possible parallels; weak answers were very limited or partial in description, and rapidly moved to extremely general comments about imperial forums or building programmes.

Gobbets (1.B.v‐viii): the best answers displayed genuinely impressive recall of the appropriate historical context and were able to consider the passage / its contents as an example of a particular historical problem or phenomenon. B.v (Res Gestae 10.2) 14 answers, of which a number were excellent or outstanding; the best answers displayed very impressive historical knowledge to fill in all the details and historical context on this text, and capped it off by considering it as an example of Augustus’ establishment of his position as princeps; weaker answers did the first of these to greater or lesser degree but could say little about the wider interest; the weakest answers did little more than repeat the text, unable to offer the necessary identifications and context or consider significance. B.vi (Tabula Siarensis) 9 answers, few good and none very good; compared to B.v candidates were generally weak on the historical context and very few offered, e.g., parallels to the SC de Cn. Pisone or other honorifics; B.vii (Tacitus, Agricola 21) 10 answers, of which a worrying number placed this around the Claudian invasion of AD 43; there were a number of strong answers which knew the context and were fully alive to the issues of how to read Tacitus and the Romanization debate; weaker answers fell down on both counts, unable to place the text and reading it very naively; B.viii (Pompeii, sale contract, tablet) only 3 answers, and mostly not well done, often with no attempt to consider the detail of the content at all and only the most general of contextual observations.

Essays: Unsurprisingly, the best answers made use of a good range of evidence and examples in well structured responses to the question asked. Several candidates had the confidence to go beyond the terms of the question, whether challenging the question itself or reframing it constructively. Weaker answers were either poor in their knowledge of specific evidence and/or failed to answer the question set (either due to weak consideration of the terms of the question and/or due to a failure to structure their answer clearly). Questions 2, 5 and 14 were much the most popular attracting 14, 13, and 11 answers respectively. Question 2 (imperator or princeps) however illustrates well the fact that the most popular question is often not the most well done, and statistically had the second worse average mark on the paper. Only a single candidate even seemed to be aware of the fact that Augustus’ full name after 27 BC was Imperator Caesar Augustus, and the majority of answers took as a working assumption that imperator was more or less comparable to dictator, and consequently post‐Julius Caesar was more or less 7 equivalent to tyrant in its implications and a dirty word; and an almost equal number went on to assert that princeps means primus inter pares and was therefore fundamentally a good thing by contrast (very few candidates brought RG 34.3 into the discussion (‘After this time I excelled everyone in influence...’)). This implied a startling lack of awareness and understanding of basic imperial titulature, and a general weakness on the basic constitutional history of the early Principate ‐ even if it would be unreasonable to assume detailed knowledge of Republican era titulature (there were several mentions of princeps senatus; very few indeed realised that imperator was a standard Republican military title). The better answers sought to draw a distinction between an emphasis on military glory on the one hand, considered to be a focus of the first part of Octavian/Augustus’ reign, and civic rule and relations with the Senate on the other, especially after 27 BC. Considerable use was made of the Ara Pacis reliefs, suggested to epitomise the princeps image, but candidates broadly struggled to find material with which to work. Question 5 (successors constrained by Augustus’ example?) was rather better done, although a number of candidates were clearly sorely tempted to see this as an opportunity to write an essay on the establishment of succession instead, and many answered primarily or even only in relation to succession policy, which was rather limiting; there were however a number of excellent answers, which considered a range of aspects of practice and policy, and examined these across the range of Julio‐Claudian emperors, sometimes even undercutting the question. Question 14 (did imperial cult increase cohesion) had several excellent answers which offered examples of imperial cult both east and west, and were alert to diversity and the challenge of how this might work for cohesion; but a number of answers were weak in examples and singularly failed to consider how to develop an analysis of the problem, or even what might be meant by ‘cohesion’.

Questions 6 and 9‐13 also attracted multiple answers, of which 6, 10 and 13 were generally better done (all making good use of examples and thinking carefully about the conceptual issues and terms of analysis), while question 11 was the weakest overall (Augustus in the minutiae of daily life – candidates seemingly chose to answer this without having much material of relevance with which to work).

ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

A10069W1 Homeric archaeology and early Greece, 1550‐700 BC

1 candidate

A10078W1. Greek vases

6 candidates sat the examination on Greek Vases. Three received marks of 70 and above, the other half achieved high upper seconds. Most candidates dealt exceedingly capably with the picture questions, whether the objects were recognized or not. Almost all descriptions were perceptive, to the point, and informed; candidates not recognizing the specimens tended to include very good contexts in their answers. However, in spite 8 of intensive practice, the picture questions were often the weaker part of the examinations. In spite of the very short time available for revision, most essays were of a pleasingly high quality drawing on good examples and displaying very good knowledge, although all candidates tended to produce one weaker effort.

Of the picture questions, 1C, a Chalkidian neck‐amphora, almost always mistaken for Attic, was the most popular. 1B, a Attic black‐figure aryballos, always mistaken for Corinthian, attracted particularly intelligent answers.

Of the essays, 5, dates, and 7, red‐figure technique, were the most popular with 5 takers each. Question 2 on Geometric vases found 3 takers, and the Chigi Olpe (6), attracted 2 students. Questions 3 (importance of Corinthian pottery), 4 (mythological narrative), and 11 (funeral vases) were each chosen by one candidate.

A10079W1. Greek sculpture

There were 9 candidates for this paper, 4 distinctions, 5 pass (on the high upper second level).

Q1: The picture questions were handled very well; the candidates were able to describe the objects accurately, use a good range of examples as comparanda for date and theme, and discuss their significance. B (Bronze acropolis head) was not attempted; A (Geneleos group) and D (Apollo Sauroktonos) were chosen by all and in most cases were familiar to the candidates; C (Ampharete stele) had 6 takers, while E (Alexander Sarcophagus) was attempted by 3 candidates. All in all a very satisfactory performance.

Essays: Compared to other years a more limited range of questions was attempted. 2 (kouroi and korai) and 11 (Delphi dedications) were the most popular with 7 and 6 takers respectively.; Q 13 (usefulness of plaster casts) attracted 4 takers, Qs 4 (Aphaia pedimental sculpture) and 8 (Amazonomachy and its popularity) had three takers, while Qs 5 (T. of Athena Nike) and 9 (Nereid Monument) had two takers. Five questions were not chosen: 3 – Athenian Treasury, 6 – cult statues, 7 – western Greek architectural sculptures, 10 – terracotta and bronze figurines, 12 ‐ portraits. There were some outstanding essays (esp. on Q 11, and Q5) that showed excellent knowledge and understanding of the sculpture of the archaic and classical periods, were well structured, used the appropriate range and number of examples to support their arguments and were able to offer detailed discussion of sculptures combined with historical analysis and interpretation. The weaker essays were marked down either because of digression and/or significant repetition, or because the answers were limited in scope, failing to address the question fully.

HISTORY SPECIAL SUBJECTS

A10070W1. Thucydides and the West

5 candidates, 2 distinction, 3 pass. Only questions 5 and 8 were not attempted. 9

Gobbets: in general very well done, with many answers being full on context and detail and having a clear grasp of the passage’s wider interest. Weak answers were very general in the contextualisation and came closer to expanded paraphrase of the text rather than elucidation of its content. 1c, d, and f received 3 or more answers and so receive fuller comment: 1c: stronger answers here were keenly aware of the literary as much as the historical function of the passage, as well as points of detail such as the Sikels. 1d: weaker answers largely repeated the content with slight expansion; stronger answers expanded on the place of this text within the Thucydidean presentation of Nikias. 1f: the sense of Athenian/Syracusan contrast was picked up by all, but neither Hermocrates nor the Syracusans were developed very well in answers here.

Essays: Not all candidates were very persuasive in their ability to read Thucydides critically, and weaker essays tended to fall down on both historical knowledge and their ability to focus on the question. Questions 2 and 3 each received four answers, so specific comments follow: 2(Athenian ignorance): several very strong answers, which showed here, more than elsewhere, a good sense of some of Thucydides’ narrative strategies, and developed well framed arguments in response to the question. Weak answers sought to answer a different question. 3 (6 and 7 as tragedy): A surprisingly weak set of answers, in contrast to Q2. There was almost no sense here of awareness of the genre of ‘tragic history’, or of what the historian might be trying to do and the techniques he might employ, and in general candidates got stuck in the very basic dichotomy between ‘history’ (good/objective) and ‘tragedy’ (bad/writing for effect).

A10071W1. Aristophanes and political comedy

3 candidates

A10072W1 Cicero and Catiline

3 candidates

A10073W1. Tacitus and Tiberius

7 candidates

For the most part this paper was quite well handled, although in most cases the essay questions were far more competent than the commentaries. Contextualisation of the passages was well done in the case of extracts from book 1, but far more vague in the context of book 3. Whilst candidates commented sensibly on Tacitus as an historian (1f), little thought was given to contextualising the passage. Similar, of the candidates who tackled 1c and 1d, no one recognised that fact that these were speeches. For the most part essays demonstrated a good knowledge of the set texts, with most 10 candidates having an awareness of sources beyond Tacitus. Those who engaged more fully with a range of sources, both literary and non‐literary, tended to provide more nuanced answers. The questions on the role of the senate (Q. 9, 6 candidates) and the role of either Germanicus or Sejanus (Q. 8, 5 candidates) proved the most popular, and for the most part considerations of the senate were well handled, although only a few candidates brought the documentary evidence into their discussion. Only one candidate chose to tackled Sejanus as opposed to Germanicus. There were some thoughtful answers regarding the start date of the principate, with the more successful answers taking the issues of the new, developing political institution into consideration(Qu.2, 4 candidates). Qu. 3. Tiberius in the provinces (2 candidates) – a good knowledge of the set texts was demonstrated, though the role of provincial governors was surprisingly only briefly touched upon. Qu. 4. (2 candidates) – decent consideration on the relevance of the imperial constitution and Tacitus’ own career within it. Some candidates engaged with the quotation on Tacitus more successful. Qu. 5. (1 candidate) Qu. 6. (1 candidate). Qu. 7 (religion) and Qu. 10 (Tacitus as biographer?) were not tackled.

LANGUAGES

Candidates who showed good knowledge of the prepared texts did best on these papers. Imprecise and paraphrasing translations for prepared texts are not looked upon favourably. Grammatical commentaries were on the whole well done, with attention to detail and understanding of grammatical terms. The unseen translations were again on the whole good – careful application of the information provided in the titles, combined with detailed grammatical analysis, was in evidence in the better scripts. Marks in the lower ranges were usually the result of poor preparation of the set texts and a lack of practice of systematic analysis for the unseens. These language options seem to be working well!

Dr Maria Stamatopoulou Chair of Examiners, CAAH Prelims 2015 Classical Archaeology and Ancient History FHS 2013: Examiners’ Report

1.1 Overview

There were 23 candidates (13 F, 10 M), taking a total of 23 different papers, including Site and Museum Reports. The results this year were pleasing, with four Firsts awarded (3 F, 1 M), 18 2.1s (9 F, 9 M) and only one poor paper in the middle of the II.2 range (F). Three of the four First Class results appeared marginal in their overall average (68.6, 68.6, 68.7), but the examiners were convinced that each was of secure first class standard. The best candidate , , who deservedly took the Thomas Whitcombe Greene Archaeology Prize, achieved an average mark of 70, but the examiners felt that this could and should have been higher. Markers continue to show reluctance to use the full scale to give due credit to individual papers of clear First Class merit.

The Examiner is grateful to his fellow examiners, Dr Janet DeLaine, whose experience and clear judgement were invaluable, and the external examiner, Dr , who made a number of important observations on exam papers as they were drafted and was efficient and sympathetic thoughout. In the final examiners’ meeting a consensus was quickly reached on all issues.

The Examiner is also extremely grateful for the efficient administrative support provided in the Classics Office by Brooke Martin-Garbutt, in the preparation of exam papers, and by Andrew Dixon, in managing every aspect of the examination process from beginning to end. The Examiner also thanks the individual assessors for their hard in setting papers to an early deadline and for marking them rapidly.

1.2 Statistics

I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2013 4 (18%) 18 (78%) 1 (4%) 23 2012 3 (19%) 12 (75%) 1 (6%) 16 2011 4 (20%) 14 (70%) 2 (10%) 20 2010 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 20 2009 2 (11%) 16 (84%) 1 (5%) 19 2008 3 (20%) 12 (80%) 15 2007 3 (14%) 17 (77%) 2 (9%) 22 2006 3 (20%) 11 (73%) 1 (7%) 15 2005 4 (20%) 15 (75%) 1 (5%) 20

2013 results broken down by gender: I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total F 3 (23%) 9 (69%) 1 (8%) 13 M 1 (10%) 9 (90%) 10

1.3 Examiners Janet DeLaine Charles Crowther (Chair) (External)

2. Reports on papers sat by more than two candidates

0715. Art under the Roman Empire

5 Candidates The candidates were clearly well taught and wrote strong, full answers with lots of examples, detailed knowledge, and useful historical context. There were one 1st and 4 upper seconds. Questions 7 and 8 (provincial art and myth) attracted most attention. The printing error that resulted in small, poor-quality, B/W images discouraged attempts at 1C and 1E (though they were each answered by one candidate). Otherwise the question choices were distributed.

0856. The Formation of the Islamic World from AD 550 to 950

Seven CAAH candidates, of whom three achieved 2.1s, two 2.2s and two thirds.

The overall performance of candidates in this paper was disappointing. Too many answers failed to confront questions directly; evasion and irrelevance, even from candidates who performed at a high level in other papers, indicated poor preparation and a failure to read the questions carefully.

0909/1.7 Athenian Democracy in the Classical Age

All essay questions were attempted, including one attempt at the optional gobbets. The best essays not only engaged with relevant evidence but also brought it to bear on the interesting, big-picture, institutional level. But these were few and far between; so, for example, the popular question, ‘What does Old Comedy add to our understanding of Athenian Democracy,’ was mostly addressed via a play-by-play approach rather than considering Old Comedy as a genre and this dramatic production as an institution in itself. A number of questions called for both coverage across the period and taking into account responses to historical events, e.g. ‘How important was the Areopagus,’ ‘Why did the Athenians create the distinction between decrees and laws?’; ‘What factors gave rise to the professionalization of the orator?’ The best essays addressed both; absences were conspicuous.

0910/1.8. Alexander the Great and his Early Successors from 336 BC to 302 BC

19 CAAH candidates sat this paper, of whom four received first-class marks, thirteen 2:1s, and two 2:2s. The standard was generally solid, but there was less really first- rate work on display than in previous years. It was disappointing to find that only three candidates engaged in any meaningful way with modern scholarship.

All questions were attempted by at least one candidate. The most popular were Q.6 (‘In what circumstances could women exercise power in this period?’, 25 takers) and Q.10 (‘Can we make any useful generalisations about “the Successors”?’, 27 takers). The former elicited some lively and well-informed answers, but the latter was often poorly done – most candidates took it as an invitation to make generalisations about the Successors, and only a few were prepared to question the category “Successor”. Many candidates wrote well on Q.4 (‘What do we learn about the character of the Persian empire from the speed and scale of its collapse in 334–30?’, 22 takers), but Q.8 (‘How important was ritual and ceremony to maintaining royal authority in this period?’, 22 takers) elicited lots of pre-packaged essays on ruler-cult.

Some pleasing knowledge of the primary evidence, particularly Arrian and the epigraphic evidence, was on display. The two questions specifically focussed on individual sources (Q.2, on pseudo-Demosthenes 17 [4 takers], and Q.12, on Plutarch [4 takers]) were extremely well done. Few candidates could make much of Q.9 (‘Can we avoid seeing Alexander as he wanted to be seen?’, 23 takers), and most answers lapsed into very generic source essays; the best answers focussed on Alexander’s attempts to control his image (Callisthenes, Lysippus, Apelles). The Lit.Hum./CAAH gobbets (12 takers) were not a great success; none of the six candidates who tackled 1.b mentioned Alexander’s alleged Carmanian revels, and of the four candidates who wrote on 1.g (Demetrius’ siege of Rhodes), three thought that the passage concerned a siege of Athens.

1.10. Cicero: Politics and Thought in the Late Republic

Answers were generally marred by minor errors: dates were frequently out by a year or more (sometimes a decade); Latin terminology was mangled; names were often misspelled; offices were often wrong; relationships were often confused or invented. The need for accuracy is not mere pedantry, but fundamental to the historian’s task, and candidates reveal their lack of attention to detail, and perhaps of detailed study, by such errors. Secondary reading was very rarely on display (e.g., across all scripts, the arguments of Glucker on Cicero’s relationship to scepticism were mentioned once; in dealing with optimates and populares several candidates appeared to have advanced no further than a rejection of Mommsen, and none referred to the recent treatment by Robb); the evidence of course comes first, but awareness of the primary modern interpretations and arguments is still essential. Perhaps hand-in-hand with this went a general acceptance of first readings, and an unwillingness to engage with the challenges presented by rhetorical and literary presentation and multiple readings. Too many answers failed to think about the (potentially different) contribution of one or more of letters, speeches, or treatises, to the topic in hand. Candidates should avoid trying to repeat material and interpretation between answers, as they cannot gain credit twice (re-use of the same example in a different way is less problematic).

All the essay questions attracted an answer except for 12 (Cicero’s sense of history); questions 8 (Cicero and augury ), 11 (Cicero and empire), and 13 (Cicero and the fate of the Republic) were much the most popular. In tackling (8), an invitation to the classic topic of the de divinatione, most candidates showed some awareness of related material in ND and Leg., but rarely more than that; very few managed serious engagement with the wider issues and context either of Cicero’s philosophical works, or the interpretation of late Republican religion, and many were simplistic or confused in their reading of de div. itself. With question (11), only a few candidates took on board the fundamental methodological difficulty of the challenge, viz. the comparison with Cicero’s contemporaries; the weakest answers offered a scattergun reportage of Cicero’s actions and views, often accepted uncritically; the strongest managed to show real awareness of the issues of self-fashioning across the various genres, and made some attempt to look at what might be said beyond Cicero. (13), like (7) on Cicero and Pompey, revealed the weak grasp of the political history of the 60s, 50s especially, and 40s, that many candidates brought to the paper. The strongest answers looked well beyond 44/3 BC, from 63 BC onwards.

1.12. Religions in the Greek and Roman World from c. 31 BC to AD 312

Every question was answered by at least one candidate; as in previous years, some of the best answers were given by those venturing the less popular questions (notably Q 4 on Aristides and Q 6 on Eusebius, where careful reading of the prescribed texts yielded enormous dividends). The converse unfortunately also remained true, and some of the weakest answers were given to those questions which attracted most custom. The familiar problem, neglect of the actual question in favour of reproduction of broadly relevant tutorial work, was much in evidence. Several answers to Q 5 failed to see that they were being asked about evidence; for Q 7 too many candidates inserted a few thoughts about rivalry into a boilerplate essay on emperor worship; a number of candidates used Q 11, on initiation, as an excuse to write the essay on Mithras and Isis which they had evidently wanted to be asked (a surprising number denied indignantly that Christianity was in any sense a ‘mystery religion’, suggesting that different religions remain unhelpfully compartmentalized). By contrast, the candidates who did make serious and careful attempts to think their way through these questions were rewarded.

1.13. Sexuality and Gender in Greece and Rome

Six CAAH candidates: two Firsts, four 2.1s. All questions were attempted by at least two candidates, with question 6 (“How influential were medical writings on ancient concepts of gender?”) and question 10 (“Was masculinity a stable concept in antiquity”) the most popular with 14 attempts apiece.

The cohort produced a sensible and solid set of scripts, showing engagement with a wide range of historical, literary and archaeological material. The examiners were pleased to note the marked absence of poor or incomplete scripts. Candidates did well who engaged closely with the wording of the question, rather than producing a list of facts related to the general topic in hand. Those who showed knowledge of relevant theoretical material were also rewarded.

As in previous years, some candidates took questions about gender to mean women only, which limited their argument. The examiners also noted that, while specific literary texts were well cited, archaeological objects were often only vaguely indicated, e.g. “a fifth-century kylix of a Greek fighting a Persian”, with no reference to museum location, find-spot or painter which might point to a specific example. There appeared to be some linguistic missteps in answers to question 1 (“Are ancient historians right to talk about ‘pederasty’ rather than ‘paedophilia’”), where candidates who stressed the literal meaning of “philia” in one word failed to observe the “eros” root in the other. Subsequent statements about differences based on the literal meanings of the two words were therefore less than compelling. Some candidates, despite shifts in scholarly practice, continued to refer to Hippokrates as the single author of the collected works now more commonly described as the Hippokratic corpus; and more than one misnamed Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Clytemnestra.

1.11. Politics, Society and Culture from Nero to Hadrian

9 CAAH candidates (3 1st, 4 2:1, 2 2:2) This year’s takers enjoyed a good strike rate of 1st-class marks, although there were relatively few scripts that could be described as exceptional. All questions attracted takers except question 7 on the later books of Tacitus’ Annals. The small number of weak scripts indicates a good level of competence and enthusiastic engagement on the part of most candidates. Questions on Nero (qu. 1), the unity of the Flavian dynasty (qu. 2) and the civil wars of AD 68-70 (qu 5) proved predictably popular, but in many cases generated answers in which material and details were not deployed with sufficient attention to relevance and the construction of arguments; many candidates leaned their answers too heavily on the thematically nearest tutorial essay. Question 8 proved surprisingly tricky with several candidates finding the term ‘Roman imperial governance’ unexpectedly opaque. Nevertheless, the examiners adopted an open- minded approach to a wide range of notions concerning where the focus of this question lay, and credit was given for any defensible interpretation. The questions on Christianity and native revolts usually generated competent answers, which, however, too frequently lacked evidence of fresh thinking and deeper engagement with the sources. Question 3 (on libertas) provoked some exceptionally thoughtful and sophisticated work as well as some answers which were plagued by lack of lucidity. Answers on ‘foreign policy’ often revealed too little conceptual clarity and focused too narrowly on one particular episode rather than considering the whole period. Many of the most outstanding answers were given to the less popular questions, such as those on the structure of Roman society in this period or the negotiation between cities of the Greek East and Rome (qu. 11), where the strongest candidates devoted some attention to the contestability of key terms and concepts before engaging in discussion of detailed and well-supported case-studies which demonstrated excellent knowledge of the set texts.

As always, a strong grasp of evidence, appropriately deployed in the service of thoughtful and imaginative arguments, led to greatest credit being given, and it was pleasing to see that many candidates were capable of generating work that displayed these qualities.

3205. Roman History 146-46 BC: Republic in Crisis

11 candidates sat the paper, of whom two got low First Class marks, the rest II:1 marks; the average mark was 66.11, which is encouraging. In other words there were no excellent scripts, but a lot of decent or solid ones, and only a single weaker one. If there was one characteristic shared to some degree by all scripts, it was a high incidence of error in detail, especially in names and dates. Comments on specific questions taken by three or more candidates:

1. Confusion abounded in some of these answers, but there were some genuine attempts to answer the question, rather than re-produce a tutorial essay. The best attempts acknowledged that the Gracchan ‘crisis’ (which some candidates sought to deny, with varying degrees of conviction) was partly about ager priuatus; but in the main there was a discouraging confusion about ownership vs possessio. Most answers constructed a decent, well-informed narrative of the Gracchan period, whether it was needed or not. All answers were, like the Greats scripts, very traditional in their scholarly outlook.

2. Answers could invariably have tried harder to define ‘politicisation’; most ended up taking the term to denote the creation of an interest group and / or the marshalling of support from the army – clearly there are more sophisticated interpretations possible, and there was little examination of ideology. Candidates were reasonably well- informed on Sulla’s role in ‘politicising’ the army, but there was some confusion about what Marius actually did, with no entirely adequate account. Only one candidate thought that ‘politicisation’ of the army might be sought in the pre-Marian period.

4. There were some nice ideas here about the SCU, the coalition of 59, and other forms of quasi-dictatorial predominance , but they were not always well related to the question. Only one candidate gave serious thought to Pompeius’ sole consulship, and there seemed to be a general assumption that the dictatorship was somehow not a constitutional position. No candidate seemed aware of rumours about Pompeius and the dictatorship in the fifties.

5. Generally reasonably well done, with a sound factual basis.

8. This was the ‘road to the Civil War’ essay by another name. The 50s seemed reasonably well known, but the idea that Cato and the optimates might have been in any serious way responsible for the war was not developed.

10. This question required some methodological rigour for a serious answer to be attempted, but none of the answers really displayed enough. There was a general reluctance to answer the question, not unconnected to the lack of attention to methodological problems; and the answers used the same limited range of examples. There were some worthwhile observations on chronology and propaganda.

3637. Egyptian Art and Architecture

6 candidates: 1 First, 5 2:1s The paper was competently done by all candidates. This year no one was outstanding, but no one dropped below 2:1 level. The spread of questions answered was acceptable, but answers tended to cluster around topics done for tutorials. This is understandable, but I have made the comment in the past that we should try to decouple the tutorial essays from the exam revision. Clearly work still needs to be done to achieve this. The picture questions were mostly reasonably well-managed, if often lacking in detail in description. Images across the range given were attempted.

5H02. Rome, Italy, and the Hellenistic East, c. 300 BC to 100 BC.

20 candidates, of whom four achieved first class results, 14 2.1s, and four 2.2s. The essay questions in this paper were tackled for the most part well, with many sensitive, well-argued answers, combining a full range of evidence. There were excellent answers to question on civic culture and survival, the value of epigraphical evidence, the visibility of women, and ruler cult. The four papers which fell below 2.1 level failed to present a broad range of arguments and supporting evidence, and at times drifted toward irrelevance. A common failing of even the best papers was an inability to answer the picture questions adequately: the percentage of fully accurate recognitions was disappointingly low. All of the pictures had been discussed or mentioned in classes, and the complete, in some cases ludicrous, failure of some candidates to recognise them was inexcusable. When the deficiencies in answers to picture questions are taken into account, however, the performance of candidates in essay questions reached a pleasingly high level.

5H12. The Archaeology of the Late Roman Empire

The paper was sat by six candidates who achieved two Firsts, two Upper Seconds and two Lower Seconds. As to the picture question 1, three of the five images were described three times each and the other two images were chosen four and five times respectively. Of the other 11 questions, four were answered once, three twice, one three times and one five times whilst two questions remained unanswered.

5H.13. The Archaeology of Minoan Crete

There was a reasonable spread of questions attempted given the small number of candidates. For the picture question all objects attracted takers except B (LM IB remains below a modern street in Khania). 1C (Cretan Hieroglyphic script) was the most popular, but unfortunately not always the best done. In particular, none of the candidates addressed the wider importance of the material, which should be an essential part of the answer to any picture question (and this tendency was not confined to just this object). Better answers, however, showed good observation, knowledge, and contextualisation. Of the essay questions, six were attempted, again a reasonable spread given the small number of candidates. The most popular was 7, on the demise of the Neopalatial palaces. Better answers showed very good knowledge linked to individual scholars. Other questions attempted were: 2 (EBA), 4 (nature of ‘palaces’), 5 (religion), 6 (thalassocracy), and 8 (writing). In general, the essays were competently done showing good engagement with the literature and wider debates. The main observable weakness tended to be with regard to knowledge of what can be learned from the Cretan scripts (both deciphered and undeciphered) which came – or should have come – into several of the questions. On the whole however the standards were pleasing and there was even some first class work, although no candidate displayed this consistently enough to gain a first overall.

9H67. Site and Museum Report

This year the site/museum reports were of a generally good to high standard, with an average of 65%, the same as the overall average for the year. There were six1sts, fifteen 2:1s, and two 2:2s. The best fulfilled the brief, combining the results of intelligent first-hand examination of the material with thorough research to produce new observations or interpretations of the evidence, set in a clear historical context, showing critical judgement and independent thought. The introduction of mechanism for submitting a revised title for the report has largely removed the problem noted last year of a lack of fit between the title and the report. As noted last year, there were again a few quite short reports which would have benefitted from expansion, including a couple which hardly seemed to represent the equivalent of a full term’s work, and one that was clearly unfinished.

This year there was again a predominance of museum reports, among which it was pleasing to see several numismatic ones, although the site reports achieved the highest average mark (67%). The level of engagement in the majority of reports, sometimes with little-known material, was impressive, even where the level of execution was not first class, and it was very pleasing to see some candidates working in languages other than English. While there were no cases of a report which was simply a thesis, several could have followed the brief more carefully; at times the object/site content was very much secondary to the historical context, while other museum reports could have been written with any selection of relevant objects and did not necessarily emerge from the objects chosen from the specific collection. There was a slight but worrying trend to introductions more suited to TV docu-dramas than scholarly reports, as there was to over-reliance on old and out-of-date sources.

Presentation continues to be a problem, images presenting particular difficulties. With some exceptions, the actual quality of the images on the whole was better this year, although legibility of legends etc could have been improved, but in several reports there were problems in the way the images were (or rather were not) integrated with the text and the catalogue, making the report unnecessarily difficult for the reader to follow; there was more than one case where attempts to combine text and image on a single page proved beyond the technical capabilities of the candidate. As usual, consistent and complete presentation of the bibliography continued to be a challenge to all but a small handful of candidates, and some reports were under-referenced. Punctuation was clearly a mystery to some, and several opted for impressionistic renderings of technical terms and proper names.

Recommendations:

• As recommended last year and the year before, it would be helpful, if it could be arranged, for PDF copies of at least one site and one museum report which achieved a first class mark could be put on Web-learn, to demonstrate the level and form they should be aiming at.

• A short class session, clearer written guidelines, or more instruction from supervisors might help with the recurrent weaknesses in presentation.

4 November, 2013.

The VVice‐Chancellor University of Oxford

5.viii.14

- External Examiner’s report Honour School of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History

Dear Vice‐Chancellor,

I am writing to report my observations as this year’s External Examiner for the Honour School of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History. I woulld like to thank Dr Anna Clark and Dr Charlotte Pottss for their exemplary efficiency in running the Examinations process. There is noo doubt that the course is thoroughly and fairly assessed. I record my further observations below under the suggested headings.

(i) Whether the academic standards set for its awards, or paart thereof, are appropriate

The academic standards are indeed appropriate and are fairly examined.

(ii) The extent to which its asssessment processes are rigorous, ensure equity of treatment for students and have been fairly conducted within institutional regulations and guidance

The Chairman and Examination Board showed the utmost rigouur and industry in running the process and I am entirely confident that it is indeed rigourous, equitable, and fairly conducted in line with insttitutional regulations and guidannce. Vetting the draft examination papers was straightforward and assisted by prompt and efficient dispatch of materials and use of a sophisticated online repository. There were no unusual circumstances to discuss. The system of using whole integer marks from 0‐100, and tthe comparatively straightforward marking descriptors and classification rules, are commendably simple and lucid. Page 2

I therefore have only a minor observation to offer under this heading, which I was pleased to find is already under consideration within the Faculty:

Arithmetic – I found a series of minor faults in the arithmetic of Prelims markers (where single marking leaves room for error to go unchecked). The Schools marksheets were then double checked by Chairman and a small number of further minor errors were discovered, though nothing that made a substantive difference to any student. The Chairman of the Examination Board was very active in spot‐checking marksheets, but a systematic solution would be better. I am therefore glad to hear that there is a move towards computerised marksheets that calculate marks automatically; their adoption should eliminate the risk of error.

(iii) The standards of student performance in the programmes or parts of programmes which they have been appointed to examine (those examining in the joint schools are particularly asked to comment on their subject in relation to the whole award)

The students are clearly knowledgeable and well taught. There was a great deal of factual knowledge on display. The only two firsts were not particularly high‐scoring and I felt that there was not much truly stellar performance in evidence (though some of the museum/site reports were very good). Nor was there any notably weak work. The very high proportion of II:i marks – all but two of the cohort of 22 – therefore seems a fair reflection of the abilities of the students. This leaves only a couple of minor observations:

1) The clustering of marks in this a narrow range of what is ostensibly a 100‐mark scale deserves some comment. The phenomenon of bunching in the II:i range is by no means specific to CAAH or indeed to Oxford. A combination of factors propels almost all marks into the ‘safe 60s’ – the awkward marriage of a linear numerical marking scale to a system of degree classifications, the compound averaging effect of double‐marking and then aggregating seven paper marks into one overall mark, a tendency among students to write solid knowledgeable examination answers rather than risky but bold analytical ones, and an apparent tendency among markers – evident in the CAAH prelims this year – to regard the 60s as a default zone with the high 50s and low 70s reserved for a few particularly bad or good answers, effectively turning a 100‐mark scale into something more like a 20‐mark scale. There is not much that the Faculty can or should do about many of these factors, but I might suggest that markers be encouraged to use the full range of marks available to them, with regard to the existing mark descriptors. The existence of the compulsory extended report alongside examinations is commendable, and further diversity of assessment methods might help candidates show the full range of their abilities. I note that the marks for the site/museum report Page 3 include in the cohort of 22 students 5 marks in the II:ii range and 4 first‐class marks – far more than the overall spread in the final classification results.

2) Candidates are asked to do a lot in examinations that carry picture and essay questions – three pictures and three essays in three hours is a high workload. This may contribute to the solid but not sparkling performance noted above. The Faculty may therefore wish to consider 1) reduction of task load in these papers and/or 2) labelling pictures, in the same way that literary gobbets and the optional ancient history epigraphy passages (taken, unlike these pictures, from a prescribed selection) are identified to candidates. In the papers that I saw I thought that several candidates made a false start with a misidentification and then carried on digging themselves into a hole in the 15 minutes available, with frustrating glimmers of actual knowledge breaking through. They might have been more able to interrogate and analyse the material they were looking at if the task of (mis)identifying it were taken away.

(iv) Where appropriate, the comparability of the standards and student achievements with those in some other higher education institutions;

These are clearly highly able students, well taught and well prepared for their exams. The tendency to group marks in the ‘safe’ middle II:I zone affects the whole sector, not just Oxford.

(v) Issues which should be brought to the attention of the supervising committees in the faculty/department, division or wider University

I would like to bring the following points to the attention of the relevant committees:

1) There is a tendency to mark in the middle of the range – see above. It would be worth continuing to remind markers to use the full available range, consulting the published marking descriptors,

2) There was a considerable variety of marksheets in use among markers, including blank sheets of paper and marksheets from other Schools. Some of these had space for comments on mark agreement, others did not. When there was such a space it was not always used. Markers should be encouraged to use a single, consistent marksheet and to fill in all relevant parts of it. I am glad to hear that this is already in hand.

3) A case arose this year in which a candidate’s degree classification turned on a single mark out of the 700 available to her. In working through the marks given to this candidate, and then the rest of the cohort, it became apparent that initial disagreement between markers was solved in a variety of ways. Meeting in the middle of the two initial marks was by far the most common method, but occasionally markers chose one or other of the original marks or met somewhere other than the middle. The marking guidelines make it clear that all these options are legitimately Page 4 available to markers, but it is important that markers record the reasons for their choice of final mark (on the standard marksheet requested in 2) above). In the case in question the agreement of markers on 64 rather than the median 65 (original marks 61/69) caused the candidate to miss a first, and no explanation for the lower mark was offered.

(vi) Good practice that should be noted and disseminated more widely as appropriate

The examinations process was conducted with an exemplary efficiency by the Chairman and Board, and I am grateful to them for making my task as easy as possible, and my time in Oxford pleasant. The Site/museum report is an excellent idea: a compulsory dissertation is unusual in the Faculty’s degree programmes and is an appropriate exercise to bring together much of the material studied in the course and allow the student to define and pursue their own interests. The quality of writing in the examples I saw (from both ends and the middle of the mark range) was high. The assignment’s guidance notes are full and helpful. Markers (properly) expected pieces that used archaeology to answer historical questions, but some quite strong candidates still spent a lot of their thesis accumulating material without interrogating or analysing it. This tendency perhaps reflects the qualities seen in the exam scripts – lots of knowledge of the material, few truly sparkly high first class analyses of the same. The guidance notes already make clear what is expected, so this is probably a matter for supervisors to discuss with their students. Previous examiners’ reports have asked for pdf versions of sample reports to be made available to students. This seems a good idea, and I suggest adding if possible a short paragraph explaining the mark awarded to each piece. I am pleased to hear that this process is well in hand.